UC-NRLF 


B    3    SLdS    bfiS 


1895    :      ^^^^^ 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 

RECEIVED    BY   EXCHANGE 


Class 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  IN  ENGLISH 


THE  SOLILOQUIES  OF  SHAKESPEARE 


COLUMBIA 

UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

SALES  AGENTS 

NEW  YORK : 

LEMCKE  &  BUECHNER 
3C-32  West  27TH  Street 

LONDON  : 

HENRY  FROWDE 

Amen  Corner,  E.G. 

TORONTO  : 

HENRY  FROWDE 
25  Richmond  Street,  W. 


THE  SOLILOQUIES  OF  SHAKESPEARE 

A  STUDY  IN  TECHNIC 


BY 

MORRIS  LeROY  ARNOLD 


Submitted  in  Partial  Fulfilment  of  the  Requirements  for 

THE  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy,  in  the  Faculty 

OF  Philosophy,  Columbia  University 


NEW  YORK 
19H 


Copyright,   191 1 
By  The  Columbia  University  Press 

Printed  from  type  October,  191 1 


Press  of 

Tme  new  Era  printins  Compant 

Lancaster.  Pa. 


This  Monograph  has  been  approved  by  the  Department  of  Eng- 
lish in  Columbia  University  as  a  contribution  to  knowledge  worthy 

of  publication. 

A.  H.  THORNDIKE, 

Secretary. 


228817 


PREFACE 

To  add  another  volume  to  the  already  overflowing  library  of 
Shakespearean  criticism  requires  a  word  of  apology.  In  de- 
fense of  this  study  as  a  "  contribution  to  knowledge,"  may  I 
preface  a  brief  plea — my  conviction  after  four  years'  investiga- 
tion of  the  subject? 

In  the  first  place,  this,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  the  only  collective 
study  of  all  of  Shakespeare's  soliloquies.  Again,  with  sur- 
prisingly few  exceptions,  this  is  the  only  technical  examination 
of  any  of  Shakespeare's  soliloquies.  Finally,  although  the 
rnliloquy  as  a  convention  has  been  frequently  treated  of  late 
years  in  some  valuable  magazine  articles  at  home  and  some 
lengthy  monographs  abroad,  this  discussion  really  adds  to  our 
knowledge  of  the  soliloquy.  There  is  a  new  treatment,  I  be- 
lieve, of  the  following  topics :  ( i )  definition  of  the  soliloquy ; 
(2)  the  data  of  Chapter  II;  (3)  the  expository  soliloquy  as  a 
means  of  identification  and  disguising;  (4)  the  soliloquy  as  an 
explanation  of  accompanying  "  business," — such  as  sleep,  sui- 
cide and  death, — as  an  accompaniment  of  an  entrance  and  of 
an  exit,  and  as  the  "unconscious  entrance  ";  (5)  the  classifica- 
tion and  analysis  of  Shakespeare's  comic  soliloquies,  showing 
their  relation  to  conventional  types;  and  (6)  the  collective 
study  of  Shakespeare's  tragic  soliloquies  as  revelations  of 
thought  and  feeling,  and,  in  particular,  these  aspects  of  the 
convention, — the  apolog}^  for  the  introspective  soliloquy,  text- 
ual indications  of  introspection,  the  setting  of  the  introspective 
soliloquy,  and  the  "  trance  "  ;  also,  the  evolution  of  the  moraliz- 
ing in  Shakespeare's  soliloquies,  and  the  classification  of  the 
passions  depicted  by  Shakespeare's  soliloquizers.  Notwith- 
standing the  analytical  method  of  this  investigation,  I  trust  that 
I  have  not  entirely  failed  to  "  rise  to  the  height  of  this  great 
argument." 

Whatever  merit  this  dissertation  may  have  is  due  in  no  small 
degree  to  the  friendly  criticism  of  the  members  of  the  English 
department  of  Columbia  University.     I  am  particularly  grate- 


Vlll 

ful  to  Professor  A.  H.  Thorndike,  to  whom  may  be  attributed 
in  large  measure  the  inception  and  development  of  the  theme, 
to  Professor  W.  W.  Lawrence,  to  whose  scholarly  suggestions 
are  due  countless  details  which  would  otherwise  have  been 
omitted,  to  Professor  W.  P.  Trent,  whose  kindly  interest  has 
been  very  helpful,  and  to  Professor  Brander  Matthews,  whose 
private  library  and  whose  broad  knowledge  of  the  subject  have 
both  been  generously  placed  at  my  service.  Moreover,  I  can- 
not refrain  from  mentioning  my  indebtedness  to  the  many 
helpful  suggestions  of  the  Professors  of  Comparative  Litera- 
ture of  Columbia  University,  and  also  to  representatives  of 
other  departments  of  Columbia  University,  the  University  of 
Minnesota  and  Hamline  University, 

M.  LeR.  a. 

Hamline  University, 
March  23,  1911. 


CONTENTS 


A  General  View  of  the  Soliloquy: 
Its  Origin,  Nature,  Development  and  Disappearance 

The  monologic  origin  of  the  drama — The  soliloquy  distinguished  from 
other  monologs — Definition  of  the  soliloquy — The  apart  distin- 
guished from  the  soliloquy — The  origin  and  development  of  the 
soliloquy — The  disappearance  of  the  soliloquy — Criticism  of  the 
soliloquy's  length — Defence  of  the  emotional  soliloquy — The  solil- 
oquy a  temporary  convention — Dual  meaning  of  the  soliloquy  as 
a  convention — Classification  of  soliloquies — Scope  of  the  investi- 
gation            r 

II 

The  Number,  Sources  and  Chronological  Development 
OF  Shakespeare's  Soliloquies 

Number    24 

Sources  :  HoHnshed  and  Halle — Plutarch — Dramas — Hamlet — Miscel- 
laneous      26 

Chronological   development,  traced  in  six  periods    41 

III 

The  Shakespearean   Soliloquy  a  Means  of  Exposition 

Initial  exposition  —  Identification  —  Disguising — Characterization — Vil- 
lainy— Narration — Critical    Comment    47 

IV 

The    Shakespearean    Soliloquy   an    Accompaniment   of 

THE  Action 

Miscellaneous  "  business  " — Sleep — Death — Suicide — The  entrance  solil- 
oquy— The  link — The  exit  soliloquy — The  overheard  soliloquy — The 
structural  soliloquy  as  a  convention    73 


X 

V 

Shakespeare's  Use  of  the  Comic  Monolog 

The  clown — The  drunkard — The  fantastic — The  cuckold — The  rogue — 
The  braggart  —  The  cynic  —  Faulconbridge  —  Falstaff  —  Launcelot 
Gobbo — Malvolio — Benedick — Conclusion    loi 

VI 

The  Revelation  of  Thought  and  Feeling 

The  apology  for  the  introspective  soliloquy — The  apostrophe — The  prayer 
— Textual  indications  of  introspection — The  setting  of  the  intro- 
spective soliloquy — Moralizing — The  workings  of  conscience — The 
debate — The  trance — The  depiction  of  grief,  love,  jealousy,  revenge, 
hatred  and  fear — The  significance  of  the  Shakespearean  soliloquy..    133 


THE  SOLILOQUIES  OF  SHAKESPEARE:   A 
STUDY  IN  TECHNIC 


CHAPTER   I 

A  General  View  of  the  Soliloquy:  Its  Origin,  Nature, 
Development  and  Disappearance 

'Until  recently,  nearly  all  the  dramas  of  the  world  have  con- 
tained soliloquies.  Usually  these  speeches  may  be  extracted 
from  their  environment  and  regarded  as  distinct  literary 
achievements,  expressing  a  philosophical  truth,  a  psychological 
struggle,  a  humorous  idea,  or  a  short  story  tragic,  romantic  or 
comic ;  and,  moreover,  the  same  speeches  generally  serve  as 
links  in  the  chain  of  plot  and  characterization.  Thus  it  is 
evident  that  the  soliloquy  is  both  a  unit  and  a  part  of  the 
whole,  and  in  this  dual  aspect  it  lends  itself  to  investigation. 

Again,  the  historical  significance  of  the  soliloquy  as  a  factor 
in  the  development  of  playmaking  has  been  commensurate 
with  its  intrinsic  literary  merits.  The  soliloquy  has  grown 
up  with  the  drama  from  its  beginnings,  and,  indeed,  a  near 
relation,  the  monolog,  seems  to  have  been  largely  instrumental 
in  giving  birth  to  the  drama. 

Theories  regarding  the  origins  of  literary  species  are  to  a 
certain  extent  conjectural ;  but  it  seems  a  plausible  hypothesis^ 
that,  long  before  there  was  a  formal  drama  in  Greece,  one  of 
the  youths  among  those  who  were  dancing  and  singing  hymns 
in  honor  of  Dionysos,  sprang  upon  a  sacrificial  table  and 
harangued  his  fellows  or  indulged  in  ecstatic  prayer.  The 
harangue  often  occurs  in  the  parabasis  of  the  comedies  of 
Aristophanes  and  occasionally  in  the  monologs  of  Plautus  and 
Terence.  Except  that  these  Roman  monologists  directly  ad- 
dress the  audience,  their  remarks  do  not  dififer  essentially  from 
the  comic  soliloquies  in  the  same  pieces.     Thus  is  evidenced  a 

^  A.  E.  Haigh,  The  Attic  Theater,  p,  6,  note  4  ;  p.  256. 
2  1 


certain  parallelism  between  the  soliloquy  of  classic  comedy  and 
the  primitive  monolog  addressed  to  the  audience. 

Likewise,  the  prayer  of  the  hypothetical  predecessor  of 
Thespis  becomes  the  most  prominent  kind  of  soliloquy  in 
classic  tragedy.  Indeed,  as  a  whole,  Greek  tragedy  appears 
monologic  rather  than  dialogic,  owing  to  the  length  of  the 
speeches  and  the  restricted  number  of  actors.  It  seems  fairly 
certain  that  Greek  drama  began  with  one  actor,  introduced, 
it  is  said,  by  Thespis  in  535  B.C.-  Then  in  the  monolog  ap- 
peared dialog,  producing  the  form  which  is  known  as  drama; 
and  in  the  dialog  there  appeared  monolog,  similar  to  the  early 
type,  but,  by  virtue  of  its  new  position  and  function,  rechris- 
tened  soliloquy. 

From  this  brief  discussion  of  the  possibly  monologic  origin 
of  classic  tragedy  and  comedy,  it  is  evident  that  all  soliloquies 
are  monologs,  but  that  monologs  are  not  necessarily  soliloquies. 
Since  the  soliloquy  is  an  integral  part  of  the  drama,  it  must 
be  differentiated  from  the  prolog  and  the  epilog,  as  well  as 
the  monologic  entertainment  complete  in  itself.  Nevertheless, 
there  is  an  intimate  relationship  between  these  forms :  the 
soliloquy  opening  a  play  is  often  prologic  in  its  expository  pur- 
pose ;  there  are  rare  instances  of  a  soliloquy  concluding  a  piece 
and  merging  into  an  epilog ;  and,  as  we  have  observed,  isolated 
monologs  and  those  addressing  an  audience  during  the  action 
of  a  piece  are  closely  associated  with  soliloquies.  How,  then, 
does  the  soliloquy  differ  from  other  monologs?  The  answer 
involves  the  definition  of  the  soliloquy. 

St.  Augustine  coined  the  word  in  Latin,  soHloquium,^  evi- 
dently from  solus  and  loqui;  hence  used  by  Augustine  as  a 
talking  to  oneself.  The  English  version  preserves  the  root 
idea;  the  soliloquy  is  a  speaking  alone.  When  a  character, 
during  the  course  of  a  drama,  is  actually  alone  upon  the  stage 
and  his  speech  implies  that  he  believes  himself  alone,  then  he 
is  soliloquizing.  Even  though  other  characters  are  present, 
the  speech  may  be  soliloquy  if  it  shows  complete  isolation  and 
oblivion  to  surroundings. 

^U.  s.,  p.  15. 

°  W.  W.  Skeat,  Etymological  Dictionary,  p.  572. 


In  brief,  the  soliloquy  is  an  integral  part  of  the  drama  which 
consists  of  a  speaking  alone.  It  is  therefore  apparent  that 
any  form  of  monologic  address  to  the  audience — such  as  the 
prolog,  epilog  and  choral  interlude — is  not  a  soliloquy,  since 
the  monologist  who  harangues  the  public,  cannot  perforce 
consider  himself  alone. 

There  is,  however,  a  monolog  which  is  an  integral  part  of 
the  drama,  but  which  nevertheless  may  be  distinguished  from 
the  soliloquy, — namely,  the  little  speech  commonly  known  as 
the  "  aside."  In  order  to  avoid  confusion  with  the  dialogic 
"  aside,"  we  shall  follow  Dr.  Hennequin^  in  styling  this  monolog 
the  "  apart."  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  distinction  between 
the  apart  and  the  soliloquy  is  a  fine  one,  and  indeed  Mr.  PaulP 
goes  so  far  as  to  assert  that  there  is  no  distinction  whatever. 
Let  us  remember  that  the  soliloquy  is  a  speaking  alone :  in 
other  words,  the  soliloquizer  believes  himself  alone,  assumes 
himself  alone,  or  at  least  completely  forgets  that  he  is  not 
alone.  The  speaker  of  the  apart,  on  the  other  hand,  never 
for  a  moment  forgets  the  proximity  of  others.  When  Caesar 
requests  Trebonius  to  be  near  him,  the  latter  replies, 

"  Caesar,  I  will;  (apart)  and  so  near  will  I  be, 
That  your  best  friends  shall  wish  I  had  been  further"  (II,  2,  124-125).* 

There  are  very  few  conversant  with  theatrical  matters  who 
would  style  this  speech  a  soliloquy.  The  reason  is  evident; 
Trebonius  is  aware  of  Caesar's  presence,  and  consequently  he 
does  not  believe  himself  alone. 

The  actor  who  speaks  an  apart  must  resort  to  some  trick 
of  delivery,  such  as  eyeing  the  object  of  his  remarks  while 
muttering  as  though  fearful  of  being  overheard,  else  facing 
the  audience  and  blandly  taking  them  into  his  confidence.  In 
other  W'Ords,  the  dramaturgic  artifice  needs  to  be  supplemented 

*  The  Art  of  Playzurighting,  p.  152.  See  also  article  by  the  same  author  in 
the  Forum,  Feb.,  1890,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  711. 

^ "  Dramatic  Convention  with  Special  Reference  to  the  Soliloquy,"  by 
H.  M.  Paul!,  Fortnightly  Review,  May,  1899,  p.  863  ff. 

'  The  line  numbering  is  that  of  Shakespeare's  Complete  Works,  edited  by 
Professor  W.  A.  Neilson,  who  follows  the  Globe  Edition,  with  this  exception, 
that  he  numbers  the  lines  of  prose  as  well  as  of  verse. 


by  histrionic  artifice.  Accordingly,  Hamlet's  "A  little  more 
than  kin,  and  less  than  kind"  (i,  2,  65)  and  the  "Still  harp- 
ing on  my  daughter"  of  Polonius  (II,  2,  188)  are  invariably 
delivered  with  unction. 

These  speeches  nicely  harmonize  with  Dr.  Hennequin's 
description  of  the  apart  as  "  little  more  than  a  short  monolog 
something  separate  from  the  dialog  itself,  and  yet  a  potent 
factor  in  the  total  representative  effect."  That  all  aparts  are 
not  marked  by  brevity,  however,  is  exemplified  by  Shylock's 
speech,  beginning, 

"  How  like  a  fawning  publican  he  looks  !  "  (I,  3,  42-53), 

and  the  Steward's  remarks  about  Timon  of  Athens: 

"  O  you  gods ! 
Is  yon  despis'd  and  ruinous  man  my  lord?  "  (IV,  3,  464-478). 

Such  instances  suggest  a  somewhat  similar  situation  in 
"Hamlet"  (III,  3,  73-96).  The  "Now  might  I  do  it  pat" 
affords  the  only  real  difficulty  in  distinguishing  between  the 
soliloquy  and  the  apart.  The  problem  does  not  concern  defini- 
tions but  rather  the  interpretation  brought  out  by  the  stage 
"  business."  It  is  a  matter  of  proximity  of  body  as  well  as 
of  thought.  If  the  speaker  is  so  far  removed  that  he  con- 
sistently considers  himself  alone,  even  though  he  is  reflecting 
on  another  character  present,  the  speech  may  be  regarded  as 
soliloquy.  The  point  involves  a  delicate  discrimination  be- 
tween subjectivity  and  objectivity,  and  must  ultimately  be 
settled  by  the  acting  as  well  as  by  the  text.  I  prefer  to  regard 
Hamlet's  speech  as  a  soliloquy :  Claudius  has  retired  in  prayer, 
and  Hamlet,  while  conscious  of  the  kneeling  king,  is  virtually 
alone  with  his  cogitations.  It  therefore  seems  best  to  class 
the  speech  as  soliloquy.  This  is  the  only  doubtful  case  in 
Shakespeare. 

Ordinarily  our  definition  clearly  determines  the  distinction 
between  soliloquy  and  apart.  In  the  aparts  just  cited,  Shylock 
and  the  Steward  are  not  alone  either  in  fancy  or  reality.  Fol- 
lowing the  convention  established  by  Roman  comedy,  the 
apart  is  almost  invariably  employed  in  connection  with  the 
overlicard  soliloquy, — in  "Love's  Labor's  Lost"   (IV,  3),  for 


example, — and   then  the   contrast  between  the  two  monologs 
is  evident,  the  apart  being  spoken  by  the  eavesdropper,  the     \ 
soHloquy  by  the  person  unconscious  of  the  presence  of  others. 

Having  in  mind  what  the  soHloquy  is  not  as  well  as  what  it 
is,  let  us  proceed  to  trace  in  general  outline,  its  origin  and 
growth  up  to  the  time  of  Shakespeare.  Necessarily  this  dis- 
cussion must  be  limited  to  a  brief  description  of  the  salient 
characteristics  of  the  soliloquies  of  succeeding  ages,  while 
matters  of  detail  will  be  reserved  for  subsequent  chapters. 

We  have  already  observed  the  monolog  addressed  to  the 
audience  as  a  very  possible  factor  in  the  origin  of  the  drama, 
and  we  have  noted  that  there  is  an  intimate  relationship  exist- 
ing between  this  type  and  the  monologic  part  of  a  play  which 
takes  np  cognizance  of  auditors  and  accordingly  is  called 
soliloquy;  however,  one  is  not  justified  in  assuming  a  relation- 
ship of  cause  and  effect. 

Rather  may  the  dramatic  soliloquy  be  explained  by  the 
tradition  established  by  the  lyric  and  the  epic  soliloquy.  Fried- 
rich  Leo'  shows  that  the  soliloquy  is  a  conspicuous  feature  of 
the  earliest  Greek  poetry, — notably  in  Homer.  Likewise,  the 
old  English  epic  "  Beowulf  "  is  not  wathout  its  soliloquy, — wit- 
ness the  lament  of  the  aged  "  keeper  of  rings  "  (11.  2247-2266)  ; 
while  some  of  the  oldest  lyrics  of  our  tongue  are  in  the  form 
of  soliloquies, — for  example,  "  The  Song  of  Deor,"  the  mourn- 
ful meditations  of  "  The  Wanderer "  and  the  strikingly 
dramatic  monolog  which  is  known  as  "'  The  Banished  Wife's 
Complaint." 

Soliloquies  are  scarce  in  the  beginnings  of  drama.  Even  the 
"  tragic  triad  of  immortal  fames  "  of  ancient  Greece  have  re- 
markably few,  owing  to  the  fact  that  speeches  which  would 
otherwise  be  soliloquies  are  addressed  to  the  chorus,  which  is 
almost  invariably  present.  As  Leo  points  out,  Aeschylus  has, 
strictly  speaking,  only  three  soliloquies,  Sophocles  two,  and 
"  only  twice  has  Euripides  removed  the  chorus  from  the  stage 

^  "  Der  Monolog  im  Drama  :  ein  Beitrag  zur  griechisch-romischen  Poetik," 
Abhandlung  der  Kdniglichen  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften  en  Gottingen 
Philologisch-Historische  Klasse,  Neue  Folge  Band  X,  Nro.  5,  Berlin,  1908, 
pp.   2-6. 


6 

in  order  to  make  room  for  monologs, — in  the  '  Alcestis '  and 
the  '  Helena.'  "^  To  be  sure,  Euripides  "  doubly  redoubles  " 
this  number  by  opening  thirteen  of  his  dramas  with  soliloquies 
revealing  the  exposition. 

The  soliloquies  of  Aeschylus  beginning  the  "  Agamemnon  " 
and  the  "  Eumenides,"  and  the  speech  by  the  protagonist  near 
the  opening  of  "  Prometheus  Bound  "  are  phrased  as  prayers 
to  the  elements  as  well  as  to  the  gods.  Sophocles,  in  the 
suicide  soliloquy  of  Ajax  and  the  lament  of  Electra  (11.  86- 
i2o)  further  illustrates  the  theatrical  power  of  the  soliloquy 
in  the  depiction  of  passion.  Sometimes  using  the  form  of 
prayer  and  sometimes  frankly  revealing  passion,  Euripides 
differentiates  one  type  as  a  dramaturgic  expedient,  the  initial 
exposition  soliloquy,  which  recurs  so  frequently  that  it  prac- 
tically constitutes  a  law  of  his  composition. 

Seneca  continues  the  tradition  of  the  exposition  soliloquy, 
which,  in  some  cases,  seems  differentiated  as  the  prolog, — 
notably  in  the  opening  monologs  of  "  Hercules  Furens," 
"  Thyestes  "  and  "Troades,"  speeches  assigned  to  propaedeutic 
characters  who  make  no  other  appearance  during  the  action. 
Unlike  the  Euripidean  "  Medea,"  the  Senecan  tragedy  opens 
with  a  soliloquy  by  the  protagonist,  in  the  form  of  an  im- 
passioned prayer  to  the  gods  for  vengeance.  The  soliloquy  of 
the  Nurse,  beginning  the  fourth  act  of  the  piece,  creates  an 
atmosphere  of  horror  by  aid  of  various  rhetorical  devices  fre- 
quent in  Seneca,  allusions  mythological,  historical,  geograph- 
ical, metaphorical  and  hyperbolical.  The  frenzied  incanta- 
tion of  Medea  which  follows  is  virtually  a  soliloquy,  although 
the  Nurse  stands  by  during  the  rapt  utterance.  Again,  at  the 
opening  of  the  second  act  of  "  Agamemnon,"  Clytemnestra 
deliberately  meditates  a  career  of  licentiousness, — a  speech 
truly  a  soliloquy,  although  the  Nurse  interrupts  by  asking  the 
cause  of  her  mistress's  silent  ("tacita")  brooding.  The  pres- 
ence of  the  confidant,  however,  prevents  many  soliloquies  in 
Seneca :  no  matter  how  long  or  introspective  the  monolog,  it  is, 
as  a  rule,  addressed  to  a  nurse,  a  messenger,  or  some  other 
character.     The  arbitrary  confidant  soon  disappears  in  English 

"U.  s.,  pp.  9,  12,  33. 


drama, — a  fact  which  accounts  for  the  increased  number  of 
sohloquies  in  our  tragedy :  omit  the  confidant  from  Senecan 
dialog,  and  there  remains  pure  soHloquy. 

The  presence  of  chorus  and  confidant,  then,  explains  the 
small  number  of  soliloquies  in  classic  tragedy.  Nevertheless, 
each  of  the  writers  of  Greek  tragedy  has  left  us  two  or  three 
soliloquies  of  power.  No  direct  influence  of  these  soliloquies 
can  be  traced  in  the  early  drama  of  England,  but  the  indirect 
influence,  through  the  medium  of  Seneca,  is  considerable. 
^-^'  An  equally  pervasive  influence  is  exerted  by  the  soliloquies 
of  classic  comedy.  Notwithstanding  the  chorus  in  Aristoph- 
anes, there  are  several  soliloquies  in  his  pieces,  the  conspicu- 
ous ones  occurring  at  the  openings  of  the  "Achamians,"  the 
"Clouds,"  "  Lysistrata,"  "Plutus"  and  the  "  Ecclesiazusae." 
The  last  named  is  notable  as  being  a  burlesque  of  the  grand 
style  of  the  Euripidean  exposition  soliloquy. 

The  absence  of  the  chorus  in  the  comedies  of  Plautus  and 
Terence  helps  to  explain  the  numerous  soliloquies,  long  and 
short,  which  introduce,  link  and  conclude  the  episodes.  In- 
deed, the  interspersed  soliloquies  are  essential  in  the  action. 
They  invariably  consist  of  spirited  comments  on  the  intrigue, 
by  way  of  summarizing  or  plotting,  thus  serving  either  to 
accentuate  the  ludicrous  situation  or  to  complicate  it.  Further, 
so  highly  wrought  is  the  convention  that  various  artificial 
varieties  of  the  soliloquy,  such  as  the  overheard  soliloquy^  and 
the  feigned  soliloquy''  with  interspersed  aparts,  add  a  novel 
interest  to  the  imbroglio. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  one  might  expect,  the  soliloquies  of 
the  English  miracle  and  mystery  plays  are  conspicuously  lack- 
ing in  artifice.  As  a  rule,  they  are  short  and  infrequent.  On 
the  whole,  the  most  characteristic  soliloquy  of  this  first  period 
of  development  is  the  serious  narrative  revealing  the  situation  at 
the  opening.  It  is  often  crude  in  its  straightforward  methods  of 
story-telling  and  of  self-identification.  Sometimes  it  is  like  the 
opening  of  Greek  tragedy  in  that  it  assumes  the  form  of  prayer, 
and  on  rare  occasions  during  the  action,  there  are  isolated 
lamentations  not  dissimilar  to  those  of  the  classics.    There  are 

*  See  below,  pp.  90,  95. 


K 


8 

a  very  few  soliloquies  of  distinction, — notably  those  whimsic- 
ally naturalistic  revelations  of  the  characters  of  the  three  shep- 
herds at  the  opening  of  the  Towneley  "  Secunda  Pastorum," 
speeches  which  happily  combine  a  depiction  of  human  worri- 
ments  and  sympathies  with  a  comic  insight  which  anticipates 
the  method  of  Shakespeare  himself.  To  these  might  be  added 
Satan's  frank  avowal  of  villainy  which  opens  the  play  on  man's 
disobedience  in  the  York  cycle.  This  soliloquy,  with  its  note  of 
dramatic  irony  giving  histrionic  point  to  the  crude  plottings  of 
the  villain,  subsequently  becomes  conventionalized,  and  gains 
its  ultimate  expression  in  the  superb  declarations  of  Gloster  at 
the  opening  of  Shakespeare's  "  Richard  the  Third." 

The  self-revelations  of  the  villain  and  the  clown  persist  in 
the  monologs  of  the  Devil  and  the  Vice  of  the  morality  plays, 
but  the  distinctive  contribution  of  the  morality  to  the  develop- 
ment of  the  soliloquy  is  the  moralizing  theme.  Nearly  all  of 
the  monologs  in  the  morality  plays,  early  and  late,  are 
virtually  little  sermons,  and  that  their  didacticism  is  not  without 
effect  is  evidenced  by  the  vast  amount  of  moralizing  in  subse- 
quent soliloquies.  In  this  respect  also,  the  Shakespearean  solilo- 
quizer gives  the  definitive  artistic  expression  to  the  type.  A 
significant  feature  of  the  sermonizing  soliloquy  of  the  morality 
play  is  its  tendency  toward  introspection  together  with  a  dis- 
closure of  the  workings  of  conscience.  Everyman's  simple, 
heart-felt  summaries  of  the  action  between  the  various  episodes 
of  the  drama  perform  a  function  similar  to  that  of  the  Greek 
chorus,  but  they  are  without  the  volcanic  passion  and  the 
elaborate  utterance  of  the  classic  protagonist. 

Perhaps  this  instance,  better  than  any  other,  illustrates  the 
vigor  and  the  sincerity  of  the  medieval  monolog,  crude  though 
it  often  is,  before  it  inherits  the  animating  fire  and  the  formal 
vesture  of  classicism.  Senecan  influence,  added  to  the  rich 
heritage  of  such  soliloquies  as  those  of  "  Everyman,"  made 
possible  the  immortal  broodings  of  Hamlet. 

The  fusing  of  classical  and  native  traditions  which  culmi- 
nated in  the  tragic  and  comic  soliloquies  of  Shakespeare  was 
well  under  way  during  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury.    The  few  soliloquies  bequeathed  to  the  Elizabethans  in 


9 

that  popular  translation  of  Seneca,  the  "  Tenne  Tragedies" 
(1559-1581),  stress  one  aspect  of  meditation  which  becomes 
the  dominant  note  of  the  English  soliloquy, — namely,  that  of 
emotional  introspection.  The  English  miracles  and  moralities 
testify  that  Seneca  is  not  the  source  of  this  conception,  but  to 
him  may  be  attributed  its  elaborate  expressron.  Thus  the  soli- 
loquies in  those  Senecan  beginnings  of  English  tragedy, 
"  Gorboduc,"  "  Gismond  of  Salerne,"  "  The  Misfortunes  of 
Arthur "  and  "  Jocasta "  differ  in  quantity  and  quality  from 
their  English  predecessors.  Not  only  are  the  new  soliloquies 
more  numerous  and  much  longer,  but  also  each  is  distinguished 
by  proportion  and  literary  finish.  Indeed,  as  acting  pieces, 
these  are  deficient  largely  because  of  the  undue  prominence 
given  the  soliloquy, — an  obvious  fault  in  the  case  of  the 
"  Gismond  of  Salerne,"  which  devotes  an  entire  act  to  monolog 
and  contains  a  total  of  four  hundred  and  fifteen  lines  of  soli- 
loquizing. Nevertheless,  although  the  work  of  five  scholars 
drawing  on  Seneca,  Dolce  and  Boccaccio,  these  soliloquies 
happily  combine  the  elements  of  plot,  introspection  and  theat- 
rical effect,  and  they  establish  precedents  for  the  soliloquies 
of  romantic  tragedy. 

Meanwhile  the  influence  of  Roman  comedy  was  producing  a 
metamorphosis  parallel  to  that  of  Roman  tragedy.  The  farces 
following  classical  models  which  appeared  in  succession  after 
1550,  "Gammer  Gurton,"  "Roister  Doister,"  "  Misogonus " 
and  "  Supposes,"  show  a  decided  increase  in  the  prominence 
of  the  comic  monolog  in  respect  to  length,  function  and  style. 
Now  there  appears  the  manipulation  of  the  overheard  soliloquy 
by  means  of  various  Plautine  and  Terentian  devices,  but 
particularly  noticeable,  combined  with  some  touches  of  native 
characterization,  is  the  vivacious  narrative  monolog  which 
flourishes  in  Roman  comedy.  To  be  sure,  the  sprightly  story- 
teller had  made  some  feeble  attempts  as  a  monologist  in  the 
person  of  the  Vice,  and  he  had  attained  a  limited  dexterity  in 
the  hands  of  John  Heywood,  but  the  metallic  brilliance  of  style 
and  the  ludicrous  insistence  on  the  plot  which  distinguish  the 
numerous  and  lengthy  soliloquies  of  "  Roister  Doister,"  as  well 
as  the  the  few  brief  ponderings  in  Shakespeare's  "  Comedy  of 


10 

Errors,"  are  the  heritage  of  Plautus  and  Terence, — an  influ- 
ence which  has  persisted  in  the  farcical  soliloquies  of  succeed- 
ing ages. 

Those  popular  mixtures  of  tragedy  and  comedy  which  throve 
during  the  first  period  of  English  drama,  "  Appius  and  Vir- 
ginia," "  Cambises,"  "  Horestes,"  "  Damon  and  Pythias  "  and 
"  Promos  and  Cassandra,"  exhibit  a  curious  intermingling  of 
native  tradition  with  Plautine  and  Senecan  influences.  Vir- 
ginius  has  a  number  of  pseudo-Senecan  lamentations,  not  dis- 
similar in  inflated  mood  to  the  mock  heroics  of  Shakespeare's 
Pyramus  and  Thisbe.  Even  closer  to  the  spirit  of  those  inimi- 
table burlesque  soliloquies  is  Cambises'  vein,  as  he  informs  the 
audience,  with  the  assurance  of  the  monologist  of  Roman 
comedy,  that  he  is  bleeding  to  death,  and  then,  with  rant  as 
turgid  as  that  of  Seneca,  he  gasps  his  last.  Horestes,  on  one 
occasion,  ponders  revenge  with  a  suggestion  of  classical  intro- 
spection, but  the  leading  monologist  of  the  piece  is  the  Vice, 
a  survival  of  the  medieval  buffoon.  Both  the  comic  and  the 
serious  soliloquies  of  "  Damon  and  Pythias,"  on  the  other  hand, 
show  a  familiarity  with  the  intricate  mechanism  as  developed 
by  Plautus  and  Terence,  in  connection  with  the  attendant  com- 
plications of  eaves-dropping  and  aparts. 

Greater  facility  and  variety  characterizes  Whetstone's  treat- 
ment of  soliloquies  in  his  double  tragedy  "  Promos  and  Cas- 
sandra." This  piece,  with  which  Shakespeare  was  evidently 
familiar,  seems  to  typify  the  technical  accomplishment  of  the 
soliloquy  in  the  apprentice  stage  of  English  play  making. 
There  are  comic  monologs  and  many  aparts,  with  numerous 
addresses  to  the  audience.  There  are  two  soliloquies  explana- 
tory of  the  disguise  in  which  the  speaker  appears,  a  form  of 
meditation  which  grows  frequent  as  disguise  becomes  prevalent 
in  romantic  drama.  There  is  the  announcement  by  the  Mes- 
senger, a  classic  tradition  which,  with  the  vanishing  of  the 
chorus,  assumes  the  form  of  the  narrative  soliloquy.  There  is 
the  revery  of  thanksgiving,  as  well  as  numerous  lamentations 
on  love  and  death.  Moreover,  there  is  a  sensational  and  dis- 
gusting bit  of  stage  "  business  "  in  Cassandra's  apostrophe  to 
the  dead,  when  she  kisses  the  head  of  Andrugio,  brought  to  her 


11 

on  a  charger" — a  gruesome  detail  which  does  not  recur  in 
Shakespeare's  "  Measure  for  Measure." 

Shakespeare's  immediate  predecessors  add  very  Httle  to  the 
technic  of  the  soliloquy  as  we  find  it  in  Whetstone.  By  1587 
the  classical  forms  of  soliloquy  are  fairly  well  established  in 
England,  but  thereafter  occurs  an  even  more  significant  con- 
tribution to  the  soliloquy's  development:  the  introspection  is 
distinguished  by  a  spontaneity  characteristic  of  the  Renaissance. 
This  is  not  the  crude  or  ingenuous  simplicity  of  miracle  or 
morality  play,  but  rather  a  human  quality  harmonizing  with 
the  vivacity  of  the  monolog  of  classic  comedy  and  the  grandeur 
of  the  monolog  of  classic  tragedy. 

No  predecessor  of  Shakespeare  does  more  for  the  spon- 
taneity and  sincerity  of  the  soliloquy  than  Thomas  Kyd.  The 
ruminating  of  BasiHsco  in  "  Soliman  and  Persida,"  a  play 
assigned  to  Kyd  or  one  of  his  imitators,  contains  a  suggestion 
of  the  comic  veracity  of  the  Falstaflf  soliloquy.  Again,  "  The 
First  Part  of  Jeronimo,"  whether  by  Kyd  or  an  imitator,  con- 
tains, imbedded  in  the  fustian,  soliloquies  characteristically 
graphic  and  psychologically  vivid.  Here  are  depicted  the  mood 
of  battle,  the  grapple  with  death  and  the  heart-beat  of  affec- 
tion. Throughout  the  close  of  the  drama,  Jeronimo  is  wont 
to  enter  with  a  little  soliloquy,  the  theme  of  which  is  his  pride 
in  his  son.  As  the  tone  of  "  The  Spanish  Tragedy  "  is  some- 
what more  inflated,  so  its  twenty-nine  soliloquies  partake  of 
bombast,  and  yet  they  reveal  thoughts  and  emotions  with  the 
ring  of  sincerity.  Extravagant  as  are  the  ravings  of  Hiero- 
nimo,  they  seem  animated  by  real  suffering.  His  eight  solil- 
oquies all  have  the  burden  of  lament  and  revenge — a  favorite 
theme  for  meditation  in  the  revenge  of  the  day.^^ 

The  soliloquies  of  the  two  parts  of  Marston's  "Antonio 
and  Mellida,"  Professor  Thorndike  has  pointed  out,^-  are 
similar  to  those  of  "  The  Spanish  Tragedy  "  in  abundance  and 

'"Six  Old  Plays,  Vol.  I.  p.  42. 

"  For  a  comprehensive  epitome  of  these  soliloquies,  see  "  Hamlet  and 
Contemporary  Revenge  Plays,"  by  A.  H.  Thorndike,  Pub.  of  Mod.  Lang. 
Association  of  America,  Vol.  XVII.  New  Series,  Vol.  X,  pp.  218,  144,  157. 
179,  206. 

^U.  s.,  p.  157. 


12 

in  reflective  character.  The  difference  Hes  in  the  increased 
stress  on  the  romantic,  a  note  struck  in  the  soHloquy  with 
which  Antonio  opens  the  tragedy.  The  sheer  histrionic  force 
of  Antonio's  passion  compares  not  unfavorably  with  the 
abandon  of  Romeo  (III,  3,  1-69).  Antonio  in  his  anguish 
falls  on  the  ground,  crying, 

"  Mellida,  clod  upon  clod  thus  fall. 
Hell  is  beneath,  yet  heaven  is  over  all"   (Part  I,  IV,   i). 

But  no  matter  what  the  tricks  of  rhetoric  or  stage  "  business," 
Marston  preserves  the  appearance  of  introspection,  even  in  the 
tedious  and  vapid  soliloquies  of  "  Sophonisba." 

But  of  all  the  soliloquies  preceding  Shakespeare,  those 
penned  by  Christopher  Marlowe  are  most  significant  in  them- 
selves, and  in  their  bearing  on  the  Shakespearean  soliloquy. 
There  is  nothing  original  in  the  subject  matter:  there  are 
laments  and  exultations,  the  cravings  of  ambition,  and  many 
suicide  and  death  soliloquies.  In  technic  Marlowe  makes  no 
actual  contribution,  but  he  is  master  of  both  technic  and  sub- 
ject. He  adds  finish,  and  he  infuses  spirit.  Therein  lies  the 
transformation.  The  opening  exposition  soHloquy  of  the  Jew, 
the  closing  death  soliloquy  of  Dr.  Faustus, — these  are  defini- 
tive. The  one  is  calm,  picturesque,  characteristic;  the  other  a. 
hoard  of  lurid  images,  fears,  prayers,  curses,  accentuated  by 
the  stroke  of  the  clock  and  the  lightning  flash,  and  blended  into 
an  emotional  climax  with  the  agonized  cry,  "  My  God !  my 
God !  look  not  so  fierce  on  me." 

Marlowe  focuses  the  attention  on  the  leading  characters 
largely  by  means  of  the  soliloquy.  For  example,  except  two 
supposedly  funny  monologs  which  are  questionable  as  to 
authorship,    alP^    of    the    soliloquies    of    "Dr.    Faustus"    are 

^^  The  precise  number  of  soliloquies  in  Marlowe  is  difficult  to  determine, 
as  indicated  by  some  data  which  Dr.  Rudolf  Fischer  has  collected  (Ziir 
Kunstentwicklung  der  Englischen  Tragodie,  p.  170).  He  assigns  to  the  two 
Tamburlaines  and  Edward  the  Second  a  total  of  thirty-five  soliloquies — a 
number  with  which  I  practically  agree ;  but  to  Faustus,  The  Jew  and  Dido 
he  gives  a  total  of  eighty-three,  which  is  different  from  my  count  of  sixty- 
one.  Dr.  Fischer's  deductions  seem  reasonable,  that  the  political  dramas, 
as  he  styles  the  first  group,  are  poor  in  monolog  because  here  action  outweighs 


13 

spoken  by  the  protagonist,  including  the  speeches  which  open 
and  close  the  drama.  In  Tamburlaine's  "  Black  is  the  beauty 
of  the  brightest  day"  (Part  II,  II,  4),  "some  holy  trance" 
does,  as  he  prays,  convey  his  thoughts  away  from  his  sur- 
roundings, rendering  him  completely  oblivious  to  the  throng 
among  whom  he  stands.  This  soliloquy  is  the  very  ecstacy  of 
grief,  made  poignant  by  the  exquisite  refrain,  "To  entertain 
divine  Zenocrite."  The  repetition  of  a  word  or  line  is  a  trick 
which  Marlowe  often  uses  with  subtle  effect  in  his  soliloquies. 

Indeed  his  verse,  always  majestic,  is  most  delicately  respon- 
sive to  the  mood  of  the  soliloquizer.  Collier  points  out  that  in 
"  The  stars  move  still  "  of  Faustus,  there  is  "  a  constant  change 
of  pause  and  inflection,  with  the  introduction  of  an  alexandrine 
and  a  hemistich  to  add  to  the  effect."^*  Says  Lowell  of  Mar- 
lowe's art,  "  In  the  midst  of  the  hurly-burly  there  will  fall  a 
sudden  hush,  and  we  come  upon  passages  calm  and  pellucid  as 
mountain  tarns  filled  to  the  brim  with  the  purest  distillation  of 
heaven. "^^  Such  is  Tamburlaine's  query,  "  What  is  beauty, 
saith  my  sufferings  then?"  (Part  II,  V,  i.)  Here  we  have  an 
aesthetic  conception  almost  too  fragile  for  words,  and  yet  so 
gracefully  phrased  that  it  seems  not  an  articulate  thought  but 
rather  a  longing  of  the  soul. 

It  was  Christopher  Marlowe  who  consecrated  the  soliloquy 
as  a  revelation  of  thought  and  feeling.  Others  of  Shakes- 
peare's predecessors — Lyly,  Peele,  Kyd — attained  this  con- 
ception, but  they  did  not  so  consistently  and  successfully  main- 
tain it.  Lyly  gave  a  note  of  fancy,  Peele  of  lyric  rapture  and 
lament,  Kyd  of  suffering  and  passion :  Marlowe  crystallized 
them  all,  making  the  soliloquy  an  artistic  unit.  The  revenge 
tragedies  and  the  domestic  dramas  of  the  day  found  channels 
for  the  philosophizing  soliloquy ;  and  even  the  late  moralities, 

reflection,  and  that  the  "  familiar  dramas  "  are  the  reverse.  Probably  the 
difference  in  count  is  due  in  part  to  a  difference  in  meaning  between  the 
German  "  monolog  "  and  the  English  "  soliloquy  ;  "  but  the  fact  is — and  this 
is  the  only  reason  for  mentioning  the  divergence — that  it  is  often  difficult 
to  determine  whether  a  speech  of  Marlowe's  is  soliloquy  or  not,  because 
of  his  tendency  to  insert  meditation  in  conversation   (see  p.   i6i). 

^*  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  Vol.  Ill,  p.   131. 

^^  Old  English  Dramatists,  p.  36. 


14 

popular  entertainments  and  chronicle  histories,  often  uncouth 
and  florid,  added  impetus  to  the  soliloquy's  popularity. 

Through  the  fervid  imagination  of  the  Elizabethans,  then, 
/^  aroused  by  the  imposing  monologs  of  the  classics,  the  English 
soliloquy,  which  began  its  career  in  the  miracle  play  as  a  little 
story  of  the  plot  or  a  prayer  or  a  word  to  the  audience, — this 
trifling  speech  developed  into  a  theatrical  convention  which 
linked  together  the  episodes  of  the  piece  and  gave  psycho- 
logical meaning  to  the  action.  Such  is  the  soliloquy  of  Mar- 
lowe, and  such,  with  even  a  more  comprehensive  reach,  is  the 
Shakespearean  soliloquy. 

Shakespeare  received  from  his  master  Marlowe  an  important 
heritage  in  this  vitalized  conception  of  Senecan  introspection 
as  an  illumination  of  the  tragic  crisis ;  but,  after  all,  this  is  only 
one  aspect  of  the  manifold  achievements  of  the  Shakespearean 
soliloquy.  For  example,  Shakespeare  so  manipulates  the 
serious  meditation  that  it  produces  a  profoundly  comic  efifect. 
Since  the  opening  of  the  "  Secunda  Pastorum,"  there  had  been 
instances  of  ludicrous  introspection,  a  tendency  somewhat 
elaborated  by  the  influx  of  classicism,  but  never  boldly  pro- 
jected until  the  appearance  of  the  inimitable  musings  of  Fal- 
staff,  Malvolio  and  Benedick. 

Again,  we  shall  find  in  our  study  of  sources  and  species  that 
continental  and  classical  plays,  poems  and  novelle  had  given 
the  love  soliloquy,  always  a  favorite  device  in  literature  and 
drama,  a  pronounced  vogue  just  before  Shakespeare,  but  it  was 
he  whose  wizardry  individualized  and  epitomized  the  type  in 
the  reveries  of  Romeo  and  Juliet.  Marlowe  himself  is  merely 
the  touchstone  to  Shakespeare's  genius.  In  lyric  grandeur 
and  passionate  intensity  the  meditations  of  Tamburlaine  and 
Faustus  are  unsurpassed,  but  the  soliloquies  of  Hamlet  and 
Macbeth  are  distinguished  not  only  by  these  qualities  but  also 
by...a  poignant  sincerity. 
I  Shakespeare's  use  of  the  soliloquy  is  so  comprehensive  that  it 

appears  to  embody  all  traditions.  The  moralizing  and  the  de- 
piction of  conscience  in  the  morality  play,  the  philosophizing 
and  the  introspection  of  Seneca  are  fused  in  his  workshhop. 
Likewise,  the  medieval  buffon  and  Vice,  the  Plautine  rogue 


/ 


15 

and  braggart  he  knows  at  first  hand,  and  he  casts  them  into 
his  melting-pot.  The  details  of  the  craft  he  learns  from  all 
sides :  Alarlowe  has  a  number  of  devices  for  producing  the 
eflfect  of  introspection,  Plautus  and  Terence  create  comic  situa- 
tions by  manipulating  the  overheard  soliloquy, — these  and 
many  other  tricks  he  employs  freely,  as  we  shall  observe. 
Moreover,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  has  adopted  an 
astounding  variety  of  methods  and  types,  the  result  invariably 
harmonizes  with  the  setting,  and  nearly  every  Shakespearean 
soliloquy  is  the  best  of  its  kind — a  masterpiece.  No  buffoon  is 
quite  so  funny  as  Launce,  no  didactic  expounder  of  the  ^ 
morahties  so  convincing  as  Brutus,  no  rogue  of  Roman  comedy 
quite  so  droll  as  Autolycus,  no  Senecan  protagonist  so  passion- 
ate as  Lear. 

We  have  traced  rapidly  the  general  lines  of  development 
of  the  soliloquy  from  its  beginnings  to  the  time  of  Shakespeare, 
and  we  have  indicated  in  brief  the  fusion  of  the  medieval  and 
classical  traditions  in  Shakespeare's  soliloquies  comic  and 
tragic,  ornamental  and  utilitarian.  But  Shakespeare's  accom- 
plishment is  not  imitation;  rather  is  it  a  transformation  so 
complete  that  it  merits  being  credited  with  the  highest 
originality. 

Since  his  soliloquies  are  both  comprehensive  and  definitive, 
they  have  served  as  models  for  succeeding  generations. 
Neither  in  spirit  nor  in  function  have  subsequent  soliloquies 
made  any  material  additions,  and  indeed  they  have  lacked,  for 
the  most  part,  any  suggestion  of  the  vitality  and  inspiration 
of  the  master.  Nevertheless,  pseudo-Shakespearean  solilo- 
quies flourished  on  the  English  stage  well  into  the  nineteenth 
century,  and  they  still  persist  in  closet  drama.  Toward  the 
close  of  the  century  the  soliloquies  abruptly  dwindled  in  length 
and  number,  and  now  they  have  almost  entirely  disappeared. 

The  disappearance  of  the  soliloquy  is  a  curious  phenomenon. 
Its  abolition  is  not  a  new  idea,  since  in  1660  Corneille  remarked 
that  "  the  style  has  so  completely  changed  that  the  greater  part 
of  my  late  works  do  not  contain  a  single  soliloquy ;  and  you  will 
find  none  in  '  Pompee,'  '  La  suite  du  menteur,'  '  Theodore  '  and 
'  Pertharite,' — nor  in  '  Heraclius,'  '  Andromede,'  '  Oedipe  '  and 


16 

*La  toison  d'or,'  with  the  exception  of  stanzas. "^^  It  is  signi- 
ficant that  MoHere's  practice  harmonizes  with  Corneille's  prin- 
ciple of  abstinence:  there  are  virtually  no  soliloquies  in  the 
great  achievements,  "  Tartuffe,"  "  Le  misanthrope,"  "  Don 
Juan,"  "  Le  bourgeois  gentilhomme,"  "  Les  femmes  savantes  " 
and  the  "  Precieuses  ridicules,"  while  the  author's  most  realistic 
sketches,  the  "  Critique,"  the  "  Impromptu "  and  the  "  Com- 
tesse  d'Escarbagnnes  "  have  no  soliloquies  whatever. 

A  century  later  Cailhava  testifies  that  soliloquies  have  their 
critics  who  want  to  banish  them  utterly,  and  their  partisans 
who  want  to  multiply  them.^^  In  another  century  interest  in 
the  existence  of  the  soliloquy  becomes  wide  spread,  and  we 
find  in  England  such  sentiments  as  those  of  Mr.  Archer,  who 
reserves  the  soliloquy  for  farce  and  poetical  drama,  asserting 
that  "  the  soliloquy  should  be  almost  entirely  tabooed  in  serious 
plays. "^^  Mr.  Paull  follows  with  a  plea  for  the  complete 
abolition  of  the  soliloquy  in  comedies  of  modern  life,  citing 
Ibsen's  usage,  French  criticism  and  recent  curtailing  of  solil- 
oquies by  Pinero  and  Jones. ^^ 

Ibsen  is  usually  given  credit  for  the  disappearance  of  the 
soliloquy  in  the  acted  drama  of  today.  Mr.  Henderson  quotes 
Ibsen's  observation  that  his  "  League  of  Youth "  is  carried 
through  "  without  a  single  monolog, — in  fact,  without  a  single 
aside,"  and  the  critic  affirms,  "  In  this  respect,  I  believe  Ibsen 
sounded  the  death-knell  of  the  monolog,  the  soliloquy,  the 
aside,  and  by  his  practice  soon  rendered  ridiculous  those 
dramatists  who  persisted  in  employing  these  devices."'"  Not 
Ibsen  but  Edison  is  responsible  for  the  disrepute  of  the 
soliloquy,  according  to  Professor  Brander  Matthews,  who 
points  out  that  the  electric  lighting  of  the  modern  stage  and  the 
picture-frame  effect  of  the  proscenium  arch  produce  a  realistic 

^°  Oeuvres,  edited  by  Marty-Laveaux,  Vol.  I,  p.  45. 

"  De  I' art  de  la  comedie,  by  J.  F.  de  Cailhava  d'Estendoux,  Paris,  1786, 
Vol.  I,  p.  225. 

^"English  Dramatists  of  Today,  by  William  Archer,  London,  1882,  p.  274. 

" "  Dramatic  Convention  with  Special  Reference  to  the  Soliloquy,"  by 
H.  M.  Paull,  Fortnightly  Review,  May,  1899,  p.  863  ff. 

*" "  The  Evolution  of  Dramatic  Technic,"  by  Archibald  Henderson,  North 
American  Reviezv,  March,  1909,  p.  439. 


17 

setting  totally  at  variance  with  the  arbitrary  convention  of  the 
soliloquy.-^  Doubtless  this  is  an  important  factor  in  the  ex- 
planation ;  doubtless,  also,  there  is  truth  in  Mr.  Paull's  aphor- 
ism :  "  A  convention  that  is  questioned  is  doomed ;  its  existence 
depends  upon  its  unhesitating  acceptance.-- 

Objection  has  frequently  been  made  to  the  lengthy  soliloquy, 
— by  a  reporter  of  Pesaro  in  1574,"^  by  the  Earl  of  Mulgrave 
in  his  "Essay  on  Poetry"  (1717),  and  by  a  host  of  critics  of 
the  last  half-century.  Mr.  Henderson  voices  the  consensus  of 
modern  opinion  in  his  statement  that  "  the  soliloquy  of  a  sane 
man  in  actual  life  is  of  an  exceedingly  brief  interval  of  time — 
a  few  words  or,  at  most,  a  few  sentences.  .  .  .  Dramatic  craft- 
manship  has  today  reached  a  point  of  such  complex  excellence 
that  the  best  dramatists  refuse  to  employ  so  unworthy  a  device 
as  the  lengthy  soliloquy.-* 

The  principle  is  not  a  new  one.  Nearly  two  centuries  ago 
the  Earl  of  Mulgrave  ordained: 

"  First  then,  Soliloquies  had  need  be  few, 
Extremely  short,  and  spoke  in  Passion  too."^ 

The  same  requirements  were  made  by  the  German  critic 
Gottsched  in  1730:  "  Kluge  Leute  pflegen  nicht  laut  zu  reden, 
wenn  sie  allein  sind ;  es  ware  denn  in  besondern  Affekten,  und 
das  zwar  mit  wenig  Worten."-*'  Ramler  (1756-58)  echoes 
the  sentiment,  insisting  that  the  soliloquy  should  be  short,  or  if 
long,  that  the  speaker  must  be  "  in  einer  heftigen  Gemiiths- 
bewegung."^^     Joseph  von  Sonnenfels    (1768),  the  Viennese 

^  "  Concerning  the  Soliloquy,"  by  Brander  Matthews,  Putnam's  Monthly, 
Nov.,  1906,  p.  180  ff.  See  also  A  Study  of  the  Drama,  by  Brander  Matthews, 
p.  64. 

="U.  s.,  p.  870. 

^  Geschichte  des  Neueren  Dramas,  by  Wilhelm  Creizenach,  Vol.  II,  p. 
287,  note  2. 

"U.  s.,  p.  440. 

^  An  Essay  on  Poetry,  London,  171 7,  p.  308. 

'^  Versuch  einer  Critischen  Dichtkunst,  p.  598. 

^  Einleitung  in  die  schonen  Wissenschaften,  by  S.  K.  W.  Ramler,  Vol.  II, 
p.  246  ff.  For  this  and  several  other  citations  in  this  chapter,  I  am  indebted 
to  the  valuable  monograph  by  Friedrich  Diisel,  Der  dramatische  Monolog  in 


18 

theatrical  censor  and  stage  manager,  is  even  more  stringent 
in  his  hmitations ;  he  repudiates  the  sohloquy  except  by  way 
of  broken  exclamations  during  the  moment  of  passion  when 
"  die  Leidenschaft  auf  das  Hochste  gespannt  und  das  Herz 
gleichsam  zu  enge  ist,  den  Inneren  Kampf  in  sich  zu  fassen."-® 
Thus  he  anticipates  the  law  enunciated  by  Mr.  Archer  (1882)  : 
"A  few  broken  exclamations  under  high  emotion  is  all  the 
soliloquy  that  strict  art  should  permit,  for  high  emotion  does 
in  many  cases  manifest  itself  in  speech."^^ 

On  the  other  hand,  the  lengthy  emotional  soliloquy  has  been 
warmly  admired  by  many  critics.  "  I  confess,"  admits  the 
Abbe  d'Aubignac  in  his  "  Pratique  du  Theatre,"  englished  in 
1684,  "  that  it  is  sometimes  very  pleasant  to  see  a  man  upon 
the  stage  lay  open  his  heart,  and  speak  boldly  of  his  most 
secret  thoughts,  explain  his  designs,  and  give  vent  to  all  that 
his  passion  suggests ;  but  without  doubt  it  is  very  hard  to  make 
an  Actor  do  it  with  probability."^''  The  soliloquy  is  most 
likely  to  be  appreciated  and  defended  as  a  revelation  of  thought 
and  feeling.  Says  William  Congreve  in  his  Epistle  Dedicatory 
to  "The  Double-Dealer "  (1694)  :  "When  a  man  in  soliloquy 
reasons  with  himself,  and  pro's  and  con's,  and  weighs  all  his 
designs,  we  ought  not  to  imagine  that  this  man  either  talks 
to  us  or  to  himself ;  he  is  only  thinking,  and  thinking  such 
matter  as  were  inexcusable  folly  in  him  to  speak."  Says 
Diderot  (1756)  :  "  L'homme  ne  se  parle  a  lui-meme  que  dans 
des  instants  de  perplexite "  ;^^  and  Nicolai  (1757)  elaborates 
the  thought,  urging  that  the  sorrowful,  the  angry  and  the 
irresolute  should  be  allowed  to  talk  to  themselves.^-  In  the 
same  year  (1757),  Mendelssohn  eulogizes  the  soliloquy  as  an 
outpouring  of  the  soul.^^    The  "  Poetique  frangoise  "  (1763)  of 

der  Poelik  des  17.  und  18.  Jahrhunderts  und  in  dcm  Dramcn  Lcssings, 
Hamburg  und  Leipzig,  Verlag  von  Leopold  Vosz,  1897. 

^Quoted  by  Diisel,  p.  15. 

^  English  Dramatists  of  Today,  p.  274. 

^»  The  Whole  Art  of  the  Stage,  p.  57. 

^  Oeuvres  completes,  ed.  by  J.  Assezat,  Tom.  Sept.,  Paris,  1875;  Belles 
Lettres  IV,  Chap.  XVI L 

*^Friedrich  Nicolai,  "  Abhandlung  vom  Trauerspiele,"  Bibliothck  der 
schonen  Wissenschaften  und  der  freyen  Kiinste,  Vol.  I,  p.  48. 

^  Gesammelte  Schriften,  1843,  Vol.  I,  p.  321  ff. 


19 

Marmontel  boldly  proclaims  the  naturalism  of  the  soliloquy: 
"11  est  tout  naturel  de  se  parler  a  soi-meme."'*'*  Cailhava 
(1772)  maintains  that  it  is  natural  for  one  to  talk  to  himself 
when  he  is  greatly  affected,  and  he  stoutly  defends  the  soliloquy 
of  Shakespeare's  Timon  (IV,  3)  on  this  basis.^'  Sir  Walter 
Scott  (1822)  is  as  emphatic  as  Congreve  in  his  conception  of 
the  soliloquy  as  "  a  conventional  medium  of  communication 
betwixt  the  poet  and  the  audience "  f'  while  Joanna  Baillie 
(1832)  defines  the  soliloquy  as  "Those  overflowings  of  the 
perturbed  soul,  in  which  it  unburthens  itself  of  those  thoughts 
which  it  cannot  communicate  to  others."^"  The  soliloquy  re- 
veals the  "  most  secret  feeling  and  volition,"  according  to  Frey- 
tag  (1863);"^  and  Mr.  Price  thus  pleads  for  the  soliloquy: 
"  Drama  is  life  and  men  make  their  most  serious  resolves  in 
solitude  and  alone. "^^  Coleridge,  commenting  on  the  revela- 
tion of  the  King's  conscience  in  "Hamlet"  (III,  2),  suggests 
that  "  even  as  an  audible  soliloquy,  it  is  far  less  improbable 
than  is  supposed  by  such  as  have  watched  men  only  in  the 
beaten  road  of  their  feelings."*"  Delius  loyally  defends  the 
emotional  soliloquies  of  "  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  "  Hamlet," 
"  Othello,"  "  Lear  "  and  "  Macbeth  "  f^  and  Kilian  believes  that 
"  the  soliloquy  is  beginning  to  enjoy  anew  its  literary  prestige 
undiminished."*-  The  consensus  of  modern  opinion,  however, 
illustrated  by  practice  as  well  as  theor}',  is  to  the  effect  that  if 
soliloquies  are  permissible  at  all,  they  "had  need  be  few, 
extremely  short,  and  spoke  in  passion  too." 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  every  art  has  its  conventions. 
The  sculptor  and  the  painter,  as  well  as  the  dramatist,  make 
use  of  certain  arbitrary  contrivances  contrary  to  nature  but 
necessary  as  media  of  expression,  such  conventions  implying  a 

^*  Second  edition,  Paris,  1767,  Vol.  I,  p.  359  ff. 

^  De  I' art  de  la  comedie,  Paris,  1786,  Vol.  I,  p.  229. 

^^  The  Fortunes  of  Nigel,  Part  II,  Chap.  V. 

""  Introductory  Discourse"  to  Complete  Works,  Philadelphia,  1832,  p.  23. 

^  Technique  of  the  Drama,  translated  by  Elias  MacEwan,  p.  218. 

*®  Technique  of  the  Drama,  by  W.  T.  Price,  1892,  p.  127. 

*°  Furness  Variorum  Hamlet,  Vol.  I,  p.  280, 

"  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  Vol.  XVI,  p.  i  ff. 

"  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  Vol.  XXXIX,  p.  xiv. 


^ 


20 

tacit  understanding  with  the  patron  of  the  art.  No  one  has  a 
right  to  object  to  a  statue  because  it  lacks  color,  to  a  painting 
because  it  lacks  motion,  nor  to  an  interior  setting  of  a  play 
because  there  is  no  fourth  wall.  These  are  permanent  conven- 
tions inhering  in  their  respective  arts  as  long  as  the  arts  endure. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  are  temporary  conventions,  technical 
devices  which  are  accepted  at  one  time  and  place  and  rejected 
at  another.*^  The  soliloquy  has  been  perhaps  the  most  per- 
sistent of  the  temporary  conventions  of  the  drama.  Thus  for 
centuries  it  has  been  a  means  of  imparting  information  as  to 
the  plot  as  well  as  to  the  secret  convictions  of  a  character, — the 
assumption  being  that  the  soliloquizer  is  talking  or  thinking  to 
himself,  although  in  reality  he  is  addressing  the  audience. 

Obviously,  the  soliloquizer  talks  to  himself.  That  people  do 
talk  to  themselves  is  undeniable,  but  that  young,  healthy 
persons  audibly  set  forth  their  secret  ideas  at  great  length  is 
preposterous.  That  they  do  so  in  soliloquy,  however,  is  en- 
tirely satisfactory  so  long  as  the  convention  is  unquestioned, 
because  the  convention  is  a  matter  of  technic  wholly  inde- 
pendent of  nature.  It  is  a  means  rather  than  an  end.  By 
aid  of  the  soliloquy,  the  playwright  informs  the  auditor  what  a 
character  would  say  if  he  were  in  the  habit  of  talking  to  him- 
sdf.,. 

Sometimes  the  dramatist  goes  a  step  farther,  and  uses  the 
soliloquy  as  a  mUicxt  for  disclosing  inaudible  thoughts.  In 
that  case,  the  soliloquizer  is  represented  not  as  talking  to  him- 
self but  as  thinking  to  himself,  and  we  pass  from  the  frank 
convention  to  one  subtly  suggestive.  When  this  type  of 
soliloquy  is  used  with  full  effect,  as  it  often  is  in  the  great 
tragedies  of  Shakespeare,  the  auditor  forgets  the  medium  of 
speech,  merely  realizing  that  he  is  becoming  aware  of  the 
thoughts  and  the  emotions  of  the  soliloquizer.  A  similar  illu- 
sion occurs  in  the  reading  of  a  novel,  as  Sir  Walter  Scott 
pointed  out,** — the  only  difiference  being  that  the  soliloquy  of 

"  See  The  Development  of  the  Drama,  by  Brander  Matthews,  p.  2  ff. ;  also 
"  The  Convention  of  the  Drama  "  in  The  Historical  Novel  and  Other  Essays, 
by  Brander  Matthews. 

"  The  Fortunes  of  Nigel,  Part  II,  Chapter  V. 


21 

fiction  is  transmitted  by  aid  of  the  printed  page  instead  of  the 
spoken  word.  LWhen  Hamlet  muses,  "  To  be  or  not  to  be,"  we 
give  no  heed  to  the  fact  that  he  is  talking,  for  our  whole  atten- 
tion is  vibrantly  sympathetic  with  the  workings  of  his  brain 
and  the  feelings  of  his  heart.  The  methods  by  which  words 
are  used  to  symbolize  thoughts  and  moods  we  shall  consider 
in  detail  (Chapter  VI),  but  at  the  outset  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  soliloquy  is  a  convention  for  the  portrayal  of 
either  speech  or  thought. 

/"All  soliloquies,  then,  may  be  classified  as  either  verbal  or 
tnental,  the  former  occurring  much  more  frequently  than  the 
latter.  The  verbal  soliloquizers  are  assumed  to  be  talking  to 
themselves ;  they  often  state  the  fact,  and  frequently  apostrophe 
is  used  as  speech.  The  verbal  soliloquy,  particularly  in 
comedy,  seems  to  take  its  rise  in  the  direct  address  to  the 
audience,  and  sometimes  a  parenthetical  word  to  the  hearers 
occurs  in  a  speech  which  in  other  respects  ranks  as  a  comic 
soliloquy, — for  example,  Falstaff's  "  O,  you  shall  see  him  laugh 
till  his  face  be  like  a  wet  cloak  ill  laid  up"  ("The  Second 
Part  of  Henry  the  Fourth,"  V,  i,  93-95). 

t-  The  mental  soliloquizer,  according  to  the  convention,  is 
hinking  to  himself.  Often  he  refers  to  his  thoughts,  and  the 
matter  and  the  manner  of  his  utterance  are  far  removed  from 
ordinary  speech.  The  mental  soliloquy  is  not  necessarily  intel- 
lectual, as  it  may  be  dominated  by  the  emotions,  but  never  for 
an  instant  does  it  suggest  a  knowledge  of  the  audience,  an  im- 
plication from  which  the  verbal  soliloquy  cannot  always  be 
absolved.  To  be  sure,  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  decide 
whether  the  soliloquizer  is  talking  or  thinking,  but  the  general 
distinction  is  clearly  made,  and  certain  instances  prove  that  it 
was  recognized  by  the  dramatist.  Shakespeare  employs  both 
types.  For  example,  Macbeth  meditates  (I,  3)  in  the  presence 
of  his  friends,  and  they  do  not  hear  him  ;*^  while  Malvolio 
(H,  5)  talks  to  himself  and  is  overheard  by  others. 

Another  classification  of  soliloquies,  based  on  an  interpre- 
tation of  the  mood  rather  than  of  the  convention,  is  made  pos- 
sible by  the  fact  that  soliloquies  tend  to  produce  the  effect  of 

*°  For  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  passage,  see  pp.   145,   161. 


22 

tragedy  or  of  comedy.  Malvolio's  revery  is  amusing,  and 
Macbeth's  tragically  intense ;  and,  as  a  rule,  comic  soliloquies 
are  projected  frankly  as  speech,  while  tragic  ones  suggest 
passionate  cogitation.  The  rule  has  a  number  of  exceptions, 
however, — notably  Benedick's  and  Falstaff's  musings,  the 
comedy  of  which  is  largely  dependent  upon  their  introspective 
character. 

Still  another  classification  takes  cognizance  of  the  other  two, 
but  with  special  reference  to  technic,  and  this  arrangement  we 
shall  strive  to  follow.  We  shall  consider  the  comic  soliloquy 
and  the  tragic  soliloquy,  with  their  various  subdivisions  and 
their  various  aspects  of  verbal  and  mental  disclosure ;  and,  in 
addition,  we  shall  examine  a  third  class  of  soliloquies  the  dis- 
tinguishing feature  of  which  is  their  utility  in  the  mechanism 
of  the  piece.  They  supply  necessary  portions  of  the  story, 
open,  close  and  join  scenes,  and  the  like. 

Accordingly,  after  a  brief  investigation  of  some  data  relative 
to  the  quantity,  sources  and  chronological  development  of  the 
Shakespearean  soliloquy,  we  shall  turn  our  attention  to  those 
soliloquies  which  have  a  mechanical  reason  for  being,  sub- 
dividing them  as  exposition  monologs  and  devices  accompany- 
ing the  action.  Second,  we  shall  study  the  comic  monologs  of 
Shakespeare  as  such,  observing  the  stock  devices  as  well  as  the 
original  contributions  of  the  master  dramatist,  a  method  which 
requires  some  inquiry  into  the  growth  of  types.  Indeed, 
throughout  the  discussion,  comparisons  with  Greek,  Roman, 
Hindu  and  early  English  soliloquies — as  well,  occasionally,  as 
those  of  modern  times — will  be  found  of  value  in  measuring 
Shakespeare's  achievement.  Such  comparisons  will  be  of  espe- 
cial interest  in  our  investigation  of  the  soliloquies  of  Shake- 
spearean tragedy.  These,  the  culmination  of  Shakespeare's 
genius  in  the  depiction  of  solitary  reflection  and  emotion,  will 
constitute  the  third  and  last  division  of  our  subject  matter, 
and  we  shall  regard  them  as  revelations  of  thought  and  feeling. 

Shakespeare's  soliloquies  reveal  the  most  intimately  personal 
and  at  the  same  time  the  most  profoundly  comprehensive 
thoughts  of  his  characters ;  and  they  have  the  distinction — aside 


23 

from  the  few  borrowings  which  we  shall  presently  note — of 
constituting  the  most  original  portion  of  his  work.  Moreover, 
they  are  seldom  mere  anecdotes,  philosophizings  or  lyrical  out- 
bursts attached  to  a  play  by  way  of  ornamentation  ;  but  instead, 
arranged  to  further  characterization  and  action,  they  are  fused 
in  the  structure  of  the  drama. 


CHAPTER   II 

The  Number,  Sources  and  Chronological  Development 
OF  Shakespeare's  Soliloquies 

The  soliloquies  of  Shakespeare,  extending  over  nearly  a 
quarter  of  a  century,  include  practically  every  variety  which 
had  hitherto  appeared,  long  and  short,  comic  and  tragic,  crude 
and  subtle.  At  first  glance,  the  sequence  and  quantity  of  the 
soliloquies  seem  to  have  little  to  do  with  their  technical  accom- 
plishment. For  example,  "  Cymbeline,"  containing  the 
greatest  number  of  lines  of  soliloquy  of  any  of  Shakespeare's 
plays,  follows  in  chronological  order,  "  Coriolanus,"  which  has, 
with  a  single  exception,  the  least  number,  and  in  other  respects 
the  monologs  of  the  two  pieces  are  practically  without  points  of 
resemblance.  Nevertheless,  the  mere  quantity  of  Shake- 
speare's soliloquies  has  its  meaning,  especially  today  when 
critical  opinion  is  almost  unanimous  as  to  the  approximate 
order  of  Shakespeare's  plays.  Accordingly,  we  shall  find  the 
following  table  significant  in  our  study.  The  exact  number  of 
soliloquies  and  lines  is  no  more  definitive  than  the  dates,  al- 
though the  count  has  been  carefully  made.  The  fact  is  that, 
in  certain  rare  instances,  personal  opinion  and  interpretation 
must  determine  whether  or  not  a  monolog  is  a  soliloquy — 
Hamlet's  "  Now  might  I  do  it  pat,"  for  example.^  In  general, 
however,  a  soliloquy  is  easily  identified,  and,  moreover,  the 
following  tabulation  is  of  importance  not  as  to  exact  numbers, 
but  as  to  approximate  and  relative  values. 


1589 


1590 
1590 


1591 


Henry  VI,  Part  I   11  90 


Henry  VI,  Part  II 12  221 

Henry  VI,  Part  III   21  351 

Titus  Andronicus   8  85 

Love's  Labour's  Lost  8  153 

1591-5?     The  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona 16  297 

1591  ?         The  Comedy  of  Errors 7  62 

^  See  ante,  p.  4. 

24 


1593 
1593 
1594 
1594 
1595 
1595 
1596 


25 


King  John    5  91 

Richard  III    17  245 

Richard    II    3  79 

A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream 21  237 

The  Taming  of  the  Shrew   11  78 

The  Merchant  of  Venice 3  41 

Romeo  and  Juliet 20  293 


1597  ?  Henry  IV,  Part  I   8  142 

1598?  Henry  IV,  Part  II 7  177 

1599  Henry   V    7  131 

1598-9?  The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor   16  195 


1599 


Julius  Caesar 16  158 

1599  ?         Much  Ado  about  Nothing 7  118 

1600 
1601 
1602 
1602 
1603 


As  You  Like  It 6  36 

Twelfth  Night 8  213 

Troilus  and  Cressida    10  144 

All's  Well  that  Ends  Well   10  123 

Measure  for  Measure    8  131 


1603-4  Hamlet    14  291 

1604  ?  Othello    15  172 

1604-5  ?  King  Lear    17  185 

1 605-6  ?  Macbeth    18  245 

1607  ?  Timon  of  Athens    11  210 

1608  ?  Pericles     7  100 

1607-8  ?  Antony  and  Cleopatra  9  92 

1609  ?  Coriolanus    4  36 

idio  ?  Cymbeline     24  430 

161 1  ?         Winter's  Tale   6  153 

1612  ?         The  Tempest  5  73 

1612  ?  Henry  VIII    3  59 

These  figures  show  the  great  importance  which  Shakespeare 
gives  the  soHloqiiy.  Such  different  plays  as  "  Cymbeline," 
"  The  Third  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth,"  "  The  Two  Gentlemen 
of  Verona,"  "  Hamlet "  and  "  Romeo  and  Juliet "  contain  some 
three  hundred  or  more  lines  of  soliloquy.  On  the  other  hand, 
however,  equally  representative  pieces,  "As  You  Like  It," 
"  Coriolanus  "  and  "  The  Merchant  of  Venice,"  have  less  than 
fifty  lines  of  soliloquy.  Clearly  the  prominence  given  the 
soliloquy  is  independent  of  the  species  of  drama.     In  general. 


26 

the  soliloquies  are  quantitatively  more  conspicuous  at  the  be- 
ginning than  at  the  close  of  Shakespeare's  career.  Evidently 
there  are  numerous  exceptions  to  the  rule.  "  Titus  Andron- 
icus,"  "  The  Comedy  of  Errors "  and  "  King  John "  have  a 
notable  scarcity  of  soliloquies,  possibly  because  the  author  was 
remaking  or  adapting  old  plays  and  consequently  saw  the 
benefits  of  condensation.  "  The  Alerchant  of  Venice "  is  so 
full  of  stories  that  there  seems  no  room  for  soliloquy,  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  "  As  You  Like  It "  is  so  surcharged  with 
reflective  and  lyric  elements  that  the  author  has  wisely  reduced 
the  soliloquies  to  a  minimum.  Here  also  he  may  have  ob- 
served the  fatally  retarding  effect  of  the  lengthy  soliloquies  in 
his  source.  Most  extraordinary  is  the  bewildering  length  and 
profusion  of  soliloquies  in  "  Cymbeline,"  at  a  time  when  the 
playwright  seemed  to  be  systematically  reducing  his  solilo- 
quies to  mere  mechanical  devices  for  furthering  the  plot.  The 
many  soliloquies  of  "  Cymbeline,"  we  shall  observe,  are  due  to 
the  author's  departure  to  a  new  field,  the  "  dramatic  romance." 
But  the  greatest  numerical  achievement,  in  respect  to  both 
number  and  length  of  soliloquies,  occurs  when  the  soliloquy  is 
most  profoundly  introspective, — that  is,  from  "  Hamlet "  to 
"  Timon,"  inclusive.  This  observation  suggests  a  certain  in- 
terdependence of  the  quantity  and  the  quality  of  the  Shake- 
spearean soliloquy.  Indeed  it  is  a  fact  that,  with  the  exception 
of  Wolsey's  farewell — which  is  probably  not  Shakespeare's — 
there  are  no  famous  soliloquies  in  the  pieces  marked  by  a 
paucity  of  soliloquy.  The  converse  of  the  proposition  is  not 
necessarily  true,  as  the  crude  monologs  of  "  The  Third  Part  of 
Henry  the  Sixth  "  prove,  and  yet  the  most  perfect  instances 
of  the  Shakespearean  soliloquy  come  not  single  file  but  in 
battalions, — witness  all  the  soliloquies  of  "  Romeo  and  Juliet," 
"Hamlet"  and  "Macbeth." 

Allusion  has  already  been  made  to  the  sources  of  Shake- 
speare's soliloquies.  The  question  naturally  arises,  to  what 
extent  did  these  influence  the  dramatist?  Is  the  soliloquy  the 
most  original  part  of  the  author's  work?  A  study  of  the 
sources  discloses  some  interesting  answers  to  these  queries. 


27 

The  "  Chronicles  "  of  HoHnshed,  supplemented  by  those  of 
Halle,  contain  many  hints  for  the  content  of  Shakespeare's 
soliloquies.  In  three  instances  of  "  The  First  Part  of  Henry 
the  Sixth,"  the  kernel  of  the  soliloquy  is  found  in  Holinshed,^ 
and  others  grow  out  of  situations  suggested  by  the  chronicle. 
In  discussing  the  three  parts  of  "  Henry  the  Sixth,"  we  are  not 
entering  into  the  question  of  authorship,  for,  whether  written 
by  Shakespeare  or  some  of  his  contemporaries,  or  by  both, 
these  soliloquies  are,  at  all  events,  typical  of  the  historical 
drama  at  the  time  Shakespeare  was  beginning  his  career.^ 

The  problem  of  the  sources  of  the  second  and  third  parts 
is  complicated  by  the  existence  of  the  two  plays,  "  The  First 
Part  of  the  Contention  of  the  Two  Famous  Houses  of  York 
and  Lancaster "  and  "  The  True  Tragedy  of  Richard  Duke 
of  York,"*  the  soliloquies  of  which  are  very  similar  to  the 
Shakespearean  ones.  Each  of  the  nine  soliloquies  of  the 
"  Contention "  has  its  counterpart  in  "  Part  Two,"  with  the 
same  trend  and  many  of  the  same  words,  but  usually  Shake- 
speare amplifies  and  embellishes.  His  three  additional  solilo- 
quies^ are  ornamental  rather  than  organic.  The  relation  of  the 
soliloquies  of  the  plays  to  Holinshed  and  Halle  is  as  follows. 
Slight  material  for  two  of  Shakespeare's  soliloquies  and  for 
one  of  the  "  Contention "  is  found  in  Holinshed,^  and  the 
situations  for  three  of  Shakespeare's  soliloquies  and  two  of 

*  I,  2,  173-176  founded  on  Holinshed,  III,  S91/2/5  ;  III,  i,  78-81,  on 
Holinshed,  III,  597/2/14;  HI,  i,  187-201,  on  Holinshed,  III,  581/1/68. 

'  It  might  be  well  at  this  juncture  to  state  that  we  shall  investigate  all  of 
the  soliloquies  in  the  plays  included  by  Professor  W.  A.  Neilson  in  his 
edition  of  Shakespeare's  Works.  Whenever  it  is  presumable  that  Shakes- 
peare did  not  write  the  soliloquies — as  in  the  case  of  all  those  in  Henry  the 
Eighth,  the  first  six  in  Pericles  and  five  in  Timon — we  shall  note  the  fact 
in  any  detailed  discussion  of  them.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  case  of 
"doubtful"  plays  such  as  Henry  the  Sixth  and  Titus  Andronicus,  Shakes- 
peare may  or  may  not  have  written  the  soliloquies,  and  this  fact  must  be 
admitted  at  the  outset. 

*  Printed  in  the  (old)  Shakespeare  Society  Publications,  1843. 
'  III,  2,  136-146  ;  IV,  I,  144-147  ;  and  IV,  10,  1-17. 

'Ill,  I,  330-383 — Contention,  p.  38 — Holinshed,  III,  632/1/63;  V,  2,  66- 
71 — Holinshed,  III,  643/2/9. 


28 

the  "  Contention  "  appear  in  Holinshed/  Likewise,  in  the  case 
of  "  Part  Three,"  the  majority  of  situations  which  make  pos- 
sible the  Shakespearean  soHloquies,  together  with  those  in  the 
"  True  Tragedy,"  occur  in  the  chronicle.  In  one  instance,  the 
imagery  of  Shakespeare  is  suggested  by  Halle. ^  The  figure  of 
the  ebb  and  flow  does  not  appear  in  the  corresponding  soliloquy 
of  the  "  True  Tragedy,"  a  speech  which  is  also  without  Shake- 
speare's lengthy  moralizing  on  the  shepherd's  life.  However, 
the  dexterity  of  Shakespeare's  devices  in  the  manipulation  of 
the  overheard  soliloquy  and  the  explanation  of  disguise  is  evi- 
denced in  the  "  True  Tragedy."  There  too  the  smiling 
damned  villain  proclaims  himself  with  Marlowesque  egoism. 
Gloucester's  elaborate  soliloquy  in  "Part  Three"  (HI,  2,  124- 
195),  an  embellishment  of  one  in  the  "True  Tragedy,"  is 
apparently  the  inspiration  of  the  famous  opening  of  "  Richard 
the  Third,"  a  soliloquy  entirely  original. 

Six  of  the  eighteen  soliloquies  of  "  Richard  the  Third  "  have 
a  basis  in  Holinshed,  but,  as  in  the  case  of  the  chronicle 
sources  of  "  Henry  the  Sixth,"  none  of  them  are  in  the  form 
of  soliloquy,  unless  we  except  the  hint  that  Holinshed  drops 
(HI,  755/1/45)  that  Richard's  dream  "troubled  his  mind  with 
manie  busie  and  dreadfull  imaginations."  These  "  imagina- 
tions "  are  bodied  forth  in  soliloquy  in  "  The  True  Tragedy  of 
Richard  the  Third, ''^  but  it  remained  for  Shakespeare  to  render 
them  as  real  as  fear  itself  (V,  3,  177-206).  No  direct  connec- 
tion can  be  traced  between  the  soliloquies  of  the  "  True 
Tragedy  "  and  those  of  "  Richard  the  Third,"  and  yet  there  are 
many  similarities,  indicating  that  Shakespeare  was  familiar 
with  the  traditions  of  soliloquy  clinging  to  the  theme.  Both 
have  an  exceptionally  large  number  of  soliloquies — "  Richard 
the  Third  "  sixteen,  and  the  "  True  Tragedy  "  eighteen.  Each 
has  many  long  soliloquies,  the  most  conspicuous  being  by 
Richard,  who  discloses  his  villainous  ambitions  and  plottings — 
as  he  does  in  the  academical  piece,  "  Richardus  Tcrtius,"  for 

'IV,    10,    1-17,    18-25    and    82-90- — Contention,    pp.    62-63 — Halle,    222 
{Shakespeare's  Holinshed,  p.  283). 
'II,  S,  i-io — Halle,  256  {Shakespeare's  Holinshed.  p.  306), 
°  (Old)  Shakespeare  Society  Publication,  1844,  Vol.  XXI,  p.  61. 


29 
that  matter.     Richard  of  the  "  True  Tragedy  "  sohloquizes, 

"  Methinks  their  ghoasts  comes  gaping  for  revenge"   (p.  6i), 

which  brings  to  mind  the  Shakespearean  parallel, 

"  Methought  the  souls  of  all  that  I  had  murder'd 
Came  to  my  tent"  (V,  3,  204-5). 

But  such  an  evidence  of  borrowing  is  tenuous  at  the  best. 

The  soliloquies  of  "  Richard  the  Second "  and  of  "  Henry 
the  Fourth "  are  quite  independent  of  Holinshed.  True, 
Holinshed  contains  the  situation  for  Prince  Hal's  soliloquy  on 
the  crown,^°  but  the  real  origin  of  this  soliloquy  is  evidently 
the  one  by  the  Prince  in  "  The  Famous  Victories  of  Henry  the 
Fifth. "^^  There,  however,  he  makes  no  mention  of  the  crown 
which  he  carries  off  with  him,  and  the  audience  would  probably 
lose  the  point  of  his  exit.  Shakespeare  remedied  the  defect, 
beginning  the  soliloquy, 

"Why  does  the  crown  lie  there  upon  his  pillow?" 

There  follows  a  long  apostrophe  to  the  crown,  and  still  another 
concludes  the  soliloquy.  The  difference  of  treatment  illus- 
trates the  transforming  process  to  which  Shakespeare  sub- 
jected his  sources.  Likewise,  except  for  two  faint  hints  in 
Holinshed,  the  soliloquies  of  "  Henry  the  Fifth  "  are  original. 
The  soul-searching  soliloquies  of  "  Macbeth  "  are  not  due  to 
Holinshed,  unless  it  be  in  his  remark,  "  The  pricke  of  con- 
science (as  it  chanceth  ever  in  tyrants,  and  such  as  atteine  to 
anie  estate  by  unrighteous  means)  caused  him  ever  to  feare 
least  he  should  be  served  of  the  same  cup,  as  he  had  min- 
istered to  his  predecessor  "^- — which  seems  the  origin  of 
Macbeth's  soliloquizing, 

"  This  even  handed  justice 
Commends  the  ingredients  of  our  poisoned  chalice 
To  our  own  lips"   (I,   7,  9-1 1). 

"  The  pricke  of  conscience,"  it  is  needless  to  add,  is  the  well- 
spring  of  nearly  all  of  Macbeth's  meditations.     It  is  only  in 

'"  The  Second  Part  of  Henry  the  Fourth,  IV,  5,  20-47. 

"  Six  Old  Plays,  p.  343- 

'-  Collier's  Shakespeare's  Library,  Vol.  II,  p.  64. 


30 

hints  such  as  this,  and  never  in  the  form  of  soHloquy,  that  the 
chronicle  may  be  said,  in  any  sense,  to  give  rise  to  the  Shake- 
spearean revery. 

Plutarch  affords  suggestions  for  soliloquizing  a  trifle  more 
definite  than  those  of  Holinshed.  Six  of  the  soliloquies  of 
"  Julius  Ceasar  "  have  some  basis  in  Plutarch,  although  none 
of  them  have  a  soliloquy  as  a  source.  Plutarch  does,  however, 
indicate  the  reflective  character  of  Brutus.  "  But  when  night 
came  and  he  was  in  his  own  house  .  .  .  oftentimes  of  himself 
he  fell  into  such  deep  thoughts  of  this  enterprise,  casting  in 
his  mind  all  the  dangers  that  might  happen  "^^ — perhaps  this 
was  the  starting-point  of  the  soliloquies  at  the  beginning  of  the 
second  act.  Again,  there  is  a  hint  of  meditation  just  before 
the  appearance  of  Caesar's  ghost :  in  the  "  Life "  of  Brutus, 
"As  he  was  in  his  tent  with  a  little  light,  thinking  of  weighty 
matters"  (p.  136)  ;  and  in  the  "Life"  of  Caesar,  "being  yet 
awake  and  thinking  of  his  affairs"  (p.  103).  "The  Life  of 
Coriolanus  "  lacks  even  such  feeble  impetus  toward  soliloquy. 
The  only  resemblance  is  a  trifling  verbal  one.  Coriolanus 
soliloquizes, 

"  My  love's  upon 
This  enemy  town,     I'll  enter"   (IV,  4,  23-24). 

Plutarch  quotes  Homer, 

"'So   did   he    enter   into   the   enemies  towne '  "    (p.    169). 

Plutarch's  "  Antony  and  Cleopatra,"  however,  is  a  source 
worth  noting.  Here  for  the  first  time  in  our  investigation, 
there  is  a  soliloquy  in  the  narrative  which  Shakespeare  uses  for 
dramatic  purposes.  "  Antonius  believing  it"  (that  Caesar  was 
dead)  "  sayd  unto  himself e:  what  doest  thou  looke  for  further, 
Antonius,  sith  spightful  fortune  hath  taken  from  thee  the 
only  joy  thou  haddest,  for  whom  thou  yet  reservedst  thy  life? 
when  he  had  sayd  these  words,  he  went  into  a  chamber  and 
unarmed  himself e,  and  being  naked,  said  thus :  O  Cleopatra, 
it  grieveth  me  not  that  I  have  lost  thy  companie,  for  I  will 
not  be  long  from  thee :  but  I  am  sory,  that  having  bene  so 
great  a  Captaine  and  Emperour,  I  am  indeed  condemned  to 

^  "  The  Life  of  ^Marcus  Brutus,"  in  Skeat's  Shakespeare's  Plutarch,  p.  115. 


31 

be  judged  of  lesse  courage  and  noble  mind  than  a  woman. "^* 
Here  it  is  not  the  phraseology  which  Shakespeare  uses,  but 
the  occasion  of  the  soliloquy  and  its  mood.  Thus  inspired, 
he  transfuses  the  speech  with  the  wizardry  of  his  expression. 

Shakespeare  invariably  betters  his  instruction,  a  fact  strik- 
ingly evident  when  he  adapts  plays  already  containing  solilo- 
quies. He  discerns  their  weaknesses  and  proceeds  to  eliminate 
them.  The  "  Menaechmi "  of  Plautus  has  no  less  than  eigh- 
teen soliloquies :  Shakespeare  omits  the  parasite  and  the  old 
man  and  consequently  their  long  monologs.  He  neither  bor- 
rows any  soliloquy,  nor  does  he  have  any  overheard  soliloquy, 
although  there  are  three  in  his  Roman  model.  The  lucid  re- 
hearsal of  the  complications  by  the  soliloquizer  reflects  the 
classical  form  and  spirit ;  but  the  scarcity  and  brevity  of  the 
soliloquies  for  the  purposes  of  farce,  are  characteristics  pecu- 
liarly modern. 

Again,  in  abridging  and  transforming  the  two  parts  of  "  The 
Troublesome  Raigne  of  King  John"  (printed  1591),  Shake- 
speare omits  his  predecessor's  soliloquies,  except  the  one  in 
which  Arthur  leaps  from  the  walls  and  dies  (IV,  3,  i-io). 
This  he  preserves  with  only  slight  alteration  and  condensation. 
The  early  plays  contain  two  soliloquies  by  the  Bastard,  his 
vigorous  personality  shining  through  rather  stilted  verse.^' 
Shakespeare's  Bastard  has  two  soliloquies  which  are  satiric 
masterpieces  (I,  i,  182-219;  H,  i,  561-598).  "The  Trouble- 
some Raigne"  has  three  long  soliloquies  by  John  (pp.  273, 
282,  287),  and  the  Shakespearean  piece  two  very  brief  ones 
(IV,  2,  181;  V,  I,  25-29),  Likewise,  when  Shakespeare 
made  his  "  Measure  for  Measure "  from  the  two  parts  of 
"  Promos  and  Cassandra,"  he  applied  even  more  radical 
methods  of  omission  and  change.  Whetstone  has  a  total  of 
thirty-nine   soliloquies,^*'    Shakespeare   seven. 

In  "  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew,"  the  author  reverses  the 
process  and  increases  the  amount  of  soliloquy.     With  the  six 

"  Furness  Variorum  Edition  of  Antony  and  Cleopatra,  p.  405.  Cf.  IV, 
4,  44-49. 

"^^  Six  Old  Plays,  Vol.  2,  pp.  239,  252. 

^°  For  a  discussion  of  these  soliloquies,  see  ante,  p.  10. 


32 

soliloquies  of  the  old  "Taming  of  a  Shrew"  (printed  1594) 
may  be  contrasted  the  eleven  of  Shakespeare's.  There  is  no 
connection,  except  in  respect  to  the  serio-comic  plottings  of 
Petruchio  (II,  i,  169-182;  IV,  i,  191-214),  which  get  their 
theme  and  general  treatment  from  a  little  soliloquy  by 
Ferando.^'^ 

As  to  quantity,  the  soliloquies  of  the  old  "  Leir "  (acted 
1593)  are  similar  to  those  of  Shakespeare,  but,  aside  from  the 
general  apportionment  of  villainous  plotting,  ravings  of  Lear, 
and  comments  of  Kent  or  Perillus,  there  is  no  real  basis  of 
comparison. 

So  the  soliloquies  of  "  Timon  "  may  be  compared  with  their 
predecessors  only  along  general  lines.  The  probably  academic 
"Timon"  (c.  1602)  has  six  soliloquies,  three  of  which  are  by 
the  protagonist,  but  it  is  only  in  the  bitterness  of  Timon's 
soliloquies,  in  addition  to  their  conspicuous  character,  that  there 
is  any  similarity  to  those  of  Shakespeare.  A  much  closer 
parallelism  exists  between  the  soliloquies  of  Shakespeare  and 
Lucian,  both  in  mood  and  content  as  well  as  details.  Each 
has  two  soliloquies  of  length  in  which  Timon  digs,  discovers 
gold,  indulges  in  mock  prayer  and  rails  against  mankind. 

Thus  it  is  evident  that  the  chief  indebtedness  of  Shakespeare 
to  previous  playwrights  is  only  in  general  outlines,  assignment 
to  certain  speakers,  a  theme,  a  hint,  or  a  word.  Shakespeare 
may  have  a  hand  in  the  "  Contention  "  and  "  The  True  Tragedy 
of  Richard  Duke  of  York."  Surely  the  soliloquies  in  these 
and  the  corresponding  Shakespearean  pieces  are  strikingly 
similar,  and,  in  large  part,  identical.  But  if  these  are  ex- 
cluded as  sources,  the  only  soliloquy  which  Shakespeare 
directly  transferred  from  another,  and  that  with  some  altera- 
tion, is  Arthur's  soliloquy  in  "  King  John,"  a  speech  of  no 
interest,  except  as  an  explanation  of  a  spectacular  death. 
"  The  True  Tragedy  of  Richard  the  Third  "  gives  the  delirious 
mood  of  the  final  soliloquy  of  Shakespeare's  Richard,  the 
"  Famous  Victories  "  presents  the  situation  of  the  "  crown  " 
soliloquy,  and  "  A  Shrew  "  offers  a  motif  for  Petruchio's  re- 
flections. Here  the  direct  indebtedness  to  plays  ends,  and  we 
must  admit  that  it  is  slight. 

"  (Old)   Shakespeare  Society  Publications,   1844,  p.  28. 


33 

If  we  could  examine  the  Kydian  play  on  which  "  Hamlet " 
is  supposed  to  be  founded,  we  might  find  a  source  of  far 
greater  interest,  but,  instead,  we  must  content  ourselves  with 
conjectures  based  on  the  untrustworthy  evidence  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  German  redaction  of  the  theme,  and  the  notori- 
ously corrupt  First  Quarto.  An  examination  of  the  ten  brief 
and  crude  soliloquies  of  "  Der  Bestrafte  Brudermord  "^^  fails 
to  suggest  many  Shakespearean  characteristics,  although  here, 
as  in  our  dramas,  it  is  in  monolog  that  Hamlet  decides  on  the 
play  (H,  6)  that  the  King,  smitten  by  conscience,  kneels  in 
prayer  (HI,  i),  and  that  Hamlet  refrains  from  stabbing  him 
(HI,  2).  Hamlet's  five  soliloquies  consist  chiefly  of  the  bald 
statement  that  he  will  be  avenged,  although  the  last  one  (V,  i) 
sounds  a  deeper  note  of  introspection:  "Unfortunate  Prince! 
how  much  longer  must  thou  live  without  peace?  How  long 
dost  thou  delay,  O  righteous  Nemesis !  before  thou  whettest 
thy  righteous  sword  of  vengeance  for  my  uncle  the  fratricide  ? 
Hither  have  I  come  once  more,  but  cannot  attain  to  my  re- 
venge, because  the  fratricide  is  surrounded  all  the  time  by  so 
many  people.  But  I  swear  that,  before  the  sun  has  finished 
his  journey  from  east  to  west,  I  will  revenge  myself  on  him." 
"  In  the  reference  to  Nemesis,"  observes  Professor  Thorn- 
dike,^"  "  in  the  excuse  for  delay,  and  the  promise  to  revenge,  I 
fancy  there  are  some  faint  hints  of  a  soliloquy  which  in  its 
original  form  may  not  have  been  unlike  those  in  the  '  Spanish 
Tragedy.' "  Professor  Thorndike  points  out  that  in  the  First 
Quarto  version  of  the  fourth  soliloquy,  Hamlet  is  introduced 
"  pouring  upon  a  book  "  "  just  as  Hieronimo  and  Antonio  enter 
reading  when  they  begin  their  soliloquies.  The  appearance  of 
this  theatrical  convention,"  he  argues,  "  suggests  that  it  may 
go  back  to  the  early  '  Hamlet '  and  that  the  soliloquy  may  have 
had  an  original  form  in  the  early  play."-°  The  -probabilities 
are  strong  that  Shakespeare  revised  some  early  soliloquies 
when  he  wrote  the  drama  of  which  the  First  Quarto  is  the 
imperfect  copy. 

^*  Furness  Variorum  Edition  of  Hamlet,  Vol.  II,  p.  121. 
''' "  Hamlet  and  Contemporary  Revenge  Plays,"  Pub.  of  Mod.  Lang.  As.  of 
America,  Vol.  XVII,  p.  151. 
^  U.  s.,  p.  171,  note  2. 


34 

The  First  Quarto  is  so  corrupt,  however,  that  it  is  an  un- 
safe basis  for  arguments.  Its  soliloquies  are,  for  the  most 
part,  short,  crude  and  uncouth  in  their  phrasing.  The  delicate 
depiction  of  conscience  in  the  King's  prayer  (III,  3,  36-72)  is 
scarcely  recognizable  in  the  First  Quarto :  it  contains  the  idea 
but  not  the  poetry  of  contrition.  Indeed,  throughout  the  First 
Quarto  there  is  a  dearth  of  poetic  expression,  but  the  the- 
atrical "  points  "  are  invariably  made.  Hamlet's  third  solilo- 
quy, for  example,  abrupt  and  turgid  as  it  appears  in  the  First 
Quarto,  nevertheless  makes,  in  half  the  space,  the  "  points " 
of  the  Second  Quarto :  "  What's  Hecuba  to  him,"  "  Am  I  a 
coward?"  "About,  my  brain,"  "The  play's  the  thing," — but 
the  early  soliloquy  lacks,  as  usual,  the  sequence  and  grace 
of  its  successor. 

Only  the  first  and  fourth  soliloquies  of  Hamlet  approach 
the  definitive  utterance  of  the  Second  Quarto.  Nevertheless, 
the  garden  metaphor,  which  lends  poignancy  to  the  first  solilo- 
quy (I,  2,  135-137)  does  not  appear  in  the  earlier  text.  The 
First  Quarto  version  of  the  great  soliloquy  of  the  tragedy  has 
an  intrinsic  as  well  as  a  comparative  interest : 

"  To  be,  or  not  to  be,  I  there's  the  point. 
To  Die,  to  sleepe,  is  that  all  ?  I  all : 
No,  to  sleepe,  to  dreame,  I  mary  there  is  goes. 
For  in  that  dreame  of  death,  when  we  awake, 
And  borne  before  an  everlasting  Judge, 
From  whence  no  passenger  ever  returned, 
The  undiscovered  country,  at  whose  sight 
The  happy  smile,  and  the  accursed  damn'd, 
But  for  this,  the  joyfull  hope  of  this, 
Whol'd  beare  the  scornes  and  flattery  of  the  world, 
Scorned  by  the  right  rich,  the  rich  curssed  of  the  poore  ? 
The  widow  being  oppressed,  the  orphan  wrong'd, 
The  taste  of  hunger,  or  a  tirants  raigne. 
And  thousand  more  calamities  besides 
To  grunt  and  sweate  under  this  weary  life. 
When  that  he  may  his  full  Quietus  make. 
With  a  bare  bodkin,  who  would  this  indure. 
But  for  a  hope  of  something  after  death? 
Which  pusles  the  braine,  and  doth  confound  the  sence. 
Which  makes  us  rather  beare  those  evilles  we  have. 
Than  flie  to  others  that  we  know  not  of. 
I,  that,  O  this  conscience  makes  cowards  of  us  all  "  (pp.  25-26). 


35 

If  one  can  view  the  speech  detached  from  association  with  its 
final  expression,  he  finds  it  a  creation.  Surely  its  elemental 
phrase  and  mood  constitute  more  than  a  mere  skeleton  for  the 
finished  soliloquy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Second  Quarto 
version  is  no  mere  amplification :  its  subtle  strokes  show  the 
hand  of  the  consummate  artist. 

The  replacing  of  the  soliloquy  in  the  Second  Quarto,  mak- 
ing it  subsequent  to  the  soliloquy  determining  on  the  play,  has 
given  rise  to  adverse  comment.  Hunter-^  thus  states  his  ob- 
jection to  the  final  arrangement :  "  Such  meditations  as  these 
are  not  such  as  were  likely  to  arise  in  the  mind  of  one  who 
had  just  conceived  a  design  by  which  he  hoped  to  settle  a 
doubt  of  a  very  serious  kind,  and  who  must  have  been  full  of 
curiosity  about  the  issue  of  his  plot.  If  his  speech  is  to 
indicate  deliberation  concerning  suicide,  or  is  even  allied  to 
suicide,  such  deliberation  is  surely  out  of  place  when  curiosity 
was  awake  and  his  mind  deeply  intent  on  somethnig  that 
he  must  do.  To  be  sure,  the  hypothesis  of  Inconsistency  will 
explain  all;  but  then  it  will  explain  anything."  Hunter's 
reasoning  is  logical,  and  evidently  Shakespeare  had  the  same 
idea  when  he  blocked  out  the  drama,  but  his  revision  in  this 
respect,  as  in  others,  shows  the  keenest  insight  into  dramaturgy. 
As  to  Hamlet's  apparent  inconsistency,  that  may  be  explained 
on  the  grounds  of  his  moody  temperament.  At  any  rate,  this 
point  never  troubles  an  audience,  the  final  judge,  as  Shake- 
speare knew.  His  reason  for  altering  the  soliloquy  was  doubt- 
less for  the  sake  of  dramatic  contrast  and  cumulative  interest. 
As  Dr.  Mott  observes,  we  have  in  the  Second  Quarto  "the 
structural  device  of  presenting  a  series  of  strong  incentives 
and  vigorous  resolves,  each  followed  by  an  equally  conspicuous 
inactivity."--  The  great  soliloquy  of  the  pieces  is  static,  and 
accordingly  it  is  placed  shortly  before  the  play-within-the-play, 
a  dynamic  crisis  of  the  action.  Shakespeare  invariably  keeps 
the  moving  plot  in  the  background  of  his  reflective  passages. 
Thus  here,  in  the  Second  Quarto,  as  we  have  been  told  in 

^  Furness  Variorum  Edition  of  Hamlet,  Vol.  I,  p.  206. 

""The  Position  of  the  Soliloquy  'To  be  or  not  to  be'  in  Hamlet,"  Pub. 
of  Mod.  Lang.  As.  of  America,  Vol.  XIX,  new  series,  Vol.  XII,  p.  31. 


36 

Hamlet's  third  soliloquy  that  he  will  try  the  conscience  of  the 
king  with  a  play,  and  as  we  have  seen  the  players  and  know 
that  the  preparations  are  going  toward,  Hamlet's  pondering 
on  suicide  furnishes  an  added  element  of  suspense,  and  it 
therefore  actually  augments  the  story  interest.  As  the  suicide 
soliloquy  originally  stood,  the  play-within-the-play  was  un- 
known, and  the  only  interest  was  in  the  being  or  not  being 
of  a  hero  without  purpose.  Such  a  predicament  might  almost 
make  a  quietus  of  the  supreme  tragedy  in  the  English 
language. 

The  Second  Quarto  not  only  transplants  the  most  conspicu- 
ous soliloquy  but  it  also  adds  two  new  ones — one  an  incon- 
sequential link  (IV,  6,  4-5)  and  the  other  the  soliloquy  of 
Hamlet  in  which,  for  the  last  time,  he  communes  with  his 
spirit,  unbraiding  his  want  of  decision,  moralizing  thereon  in 
memorable  fashion,  and  concluding  with  a  new  determination 
to  revenge.  Deeply  tinged  with  Hamlet's  introspective  melan- 
choly, this  soliloquy,  like  all  the  others  of  the  second  version, 
is  both  unified  and  progressive  in  thought  and  expression. 

Let  us  briefly  review  the  hypothetical  development  of  the 
soliloquies  of  "  Hamlet."  H  one  may  judge  from  the  evidence 
of  the  First  Quarto  and  "  Der  Bestrafte  Brudermord,"  some 
of  the  important  soliloquies  had  their  origin  in  the  lost  Kydian 
piece.  These  Shakespeare  seems  to  have  retouched  in  his  first 
version  which  is  imperfectly  preserved  for  us  in  the  First 
Quarto,  and  he  apparently  lavished  most  care  on  the  "  to  be  or 
not  to  be."  In  revising  the  tragedy,  the  author  seems  to  have 
paid  especial  attention  to  the  soliloquies,  speeches  practically 
identical  in  the  Second  Quarto  and  the  First  Folio  but  diflfering 
widely  from  those  of  the  First  Quarto.  He  alters  the  position 
of  his  most  prominent  soliloquy,  he  adds  one  of  a  purely  intro- 
spective nature,  he  elaborates  the  thought,  refines  the  diction, 
transforms  jargon  into  music  and  infuses  into  every  monolog 
a  commingling  of  poetry  and  feeling  which  the  world  has 
styled  genius. 

Critics  have  attempted  to  discover  the  source  of  the  idea 
of  the  "  to  be  or  not  to  be"  with  imperfect  success.  The  book 
with  which  Hamlet  enters  in  the  First  Ouarto  has  been  identi- 


37 

fied  as  Cardanus'  "Comforte"  (1576),  and  it  may  have  sug- 
gested, as  Hunter-^  surmised,  the  Hnking  of  death  with  sleep 
and  dreams;  if  so,  the  resemblances  are  so  general  that  they 
are  scarcely  worth  noting.  With  a  greater  degree  of  prob- 
ability. Professor  Cook  ascribes  the  root  idea  of 

"  The  undiscovered  country  from  whose  bourn 
No  traveller  returns  " 
,.  -T' " 

to  Job,  ^,21.-* 

As  in  the  case  of  this  Biblical  allusion,  literary  sources,  other 
than  historical  chronicles  and  old  plays,  occasionally  appear 
pertinent.  It  does  not  seem  unlikely  that  the  burlesque  apos- 
trophes to  the  wall  by  Pyramus  and  Thisbe,  in  the  play-within- 
the-play  of  "A  Midsummer-Night's  Dream"  (V,  i,  171-182, 
190-193),  were  suggested  by  Golding's  translation  of  Ovid: 
"O  thou  envious  wall  (they  sayd)  why  lettst  thou  lovers 
thus?"-°  So  also  the  mock  heroic  suicide  soliloquies  of 
Pyramus  and  Thisbe  (V,  i,  276-292,  296-311,  331-354) 
might  easily  have  been  inspired  by  the  corresponding  solilo- 
quies in  the  pseudo-heroic  style  of  Golding's  Ovid  (p.  275) — 
especially  by  the  ranting  of  Pyramus,  who  concludes  with  the 
apostrophe,  "  Devour  ye,  O  ye  Lions,  all  that  in  this  rock  doe 
dwell. "-^  The  situations  are  identical,  and  there  is  even  the 
accessory  of  moonlight,  but,  to  be  sure,  the  fun  and  the 
jingling  verse  are  peculiarly  Shakespearean. 

There  seems  an  equally  tenuous  connection  between  the 
soliloquies  of  "  Troilus  and  Cressida "  and  the  supposed 
sources.  If  Shakespeare  used  the  numerous  lengthy  moraliz- 
ings  of  the  Chaucerean  protagonists,  his  abridgment  has  oblit- 
erated the  debt.  Shakespeare's  most  notable  soliloquies  are 
the  railings  of  Thersites.  The  self-characterization  therein 
contained  seems  to  have  originated  in  Chapman's  Homer  (Bk. 
11,  11.  196  seq.),  but  the  soliloquies  are  apparently  Shake- 
speare's own. 

^  The  passage  may  be  found  in  the  Furness  Variorum  Edition  of  Hamlet, 
Vol.  I,  p.  209. 

^  "  The  Influence  of  Biblical  upon  Modern  English  Literature,"  by  Albert 
S.  Cook,  in  The  Bible  as  Literature,  by  R.  G.  Moulton  and  others,  p.  368. 

^  Furness  Variorum  Edition  of  A  Midsummer-Night's  Dream,  p.  2y;i. 

^  Cf.  A  Midsummer-N ight' s  Dream,  V,  i,  296-297. 


38 

The  only  soliloquy  in  that  portion  of  "Pericles"  judged  to 
be  by  Shakespeare  (III,  i,  1-14)  evidently  gets  its  setting  from 
Gower's  "  Appolonius  the  Prince  of  Tyr :" 

"  The  storme  aros,  the  wyndes  lowde 
They  blewen  many  a  dredfulle  blaste, 
The  walken  was  alle  over  caste. 
The  darke  nyht  the  sonne  hath  under, 
Ther  was  a  grete  tempeste  of  thonder  .  .  . 
This  yonge  ladye  wepte  and  cride, 
To  whom  no  comfort  myht  availe : 
Of  childe  she  began  travaile, 
Wher  she  lay  in  a  caban  clos. 
Here  wofull  lorde  fro  hire  aros."^ 

He  arises  and  comes  into  the  drama  with  a  prayer  to  assuage 
the  storm  and  his  wife's  suffering.  It  is  possibly  worthy  of 
remark  that  the  other  basis  of  the  drama,  Laurence  Twine's 
"  Patterne  of  Painful  Adventures,"  contains  a  number  of  solil- 
oquies, in  one  of  which  Apollonius  apostrophizes  the  "  most 
false  and  untrustie  sea."-^ 

With  more  precision  we  may  locate  the  starting-point  of 
the  most  striking  soliloquy  in  "  Cymbeline,"  the  long  speech  of 
lachimo  (II,  i,  11-51),  which  is,  theatrically,  one  of  the 
greatest  moments  of  the  play.  In  the  second  day  of  the  ninth 
novel  of  the  "  Decameron,"  Ambruogivolo  comes  out  of  the 
chest  and  observes  the  paintings  and  hangings,  "  with  all  things 
else  which  were  remarkable,  which  perfectly  he  committed  to 
memory."    lachimo  writes  it  all  down,  but  inquires, 

"  Why  should  I  write  this  down,  that's  riveted, 
Screwed  to  my  memory?" 

This  is  the  nucleus,  but  into  the  situation  Shakespeare  has 
infused  the  elements  of  breathless  suspense  and  sensuous 
poetry. 

Most  significant  in  our  study  of  the  sources  of  Shakespeare's 
soliloquies  are  those  of  his  first  tragic  masterpiece,  "  Romeo 
and  Juliet."  Here  for  the  first  time  they  strike  and  maintain 
a  level  of  high  poetic  seriousness.  The  last  soliloquy  by 
Richard  the  Third  is  of  transcendant  power  in  its  bare  depic- 

"  Collier's  Shakespeare's  Library,  Vol.  I,  p.  283. 
*U.  s.,  p.  193. 


39 

tion  of  emotion,  but  many  of  his  soliloquies  are  frankly  exposi- 
tory. Behind  the  rapid  action  of  "  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  how- 
ever, the  soliloquies  form  a  vibrant  background  of  exalted 
passion.  Is  this  conception  of  soliloquies  as  tense  and  lofty 
revelations  of  the  inner  tragedy,  accompanying  and  illuminat- 
ing the  crises  of  the  plot,  original  with  Shakespeare?  A  peru- 
sal of  Arthur  Brooke's  poem,  "  Romeus  and  Juliet,"  brings  a 
convincing  answer  in  the  negative.  Brooke  has  many  a  solil- 
oquy in  indirect  discourse,  and  several  in  dramatic  form,  two 
of  which  are  by  Romeo  and  four  by  Juliet.  Love  is  the  theme, 
in  manifold  and  various  guises.  Shakespeare  gets  the  idea  of 
the  soliloquy  as  a  facile  means  of  revealing  emotion  from 
Brooke,  but,  as  usual,  he  vitalizes  and  transfigures  his  borrow- 
ings. Only  in  two  instances  does  he  directly  transcribe.  In 
Romeo's  death  soliloquy,  he  takes  the  apostrophe  to  Tybalt 
(V,  3,  97-101).    As  Brooke  phrases  it, 

"  Ah  cosin  dere,  Tybalt,  where  so  thy  restless  sprite  now  be  .  .  . 
What  more  amendes,  or  cruell  worcke  desyrest  thou 
To  see  on  me,  then  this  which  here  is  shewd  forth  to  thee  now? 
Who  reft  by  force  of  armes  from  thee  thy  living  breath, 
The   same   with   his   owne   hand    (thou  seest)    doth  poyson   himselfe 
to  death.""" 

Again,  in  Juliet's  potion  soliloquy,  Shakespeare  follows  the 
fears  and  imaginings  of  the  Brooke  heroine  rather  closely.  A 
few  parallel  passages  will  illustrate  the  nature  of  the  borrow- 
ings. The  early  Juliet,  before  taking  the  potion,  thus  gives 
utterance  to  her  suspicions : 

"  What  do  I  knowe  (quod  she)  if  that  this  powder  shall 
Sooner  or  later  than  it  should  or  els  not  work  at  all?  "^ 

Compare  Shakespeare: 

"  What  if  this  mixture  do  not  work  at  all?  "  (IV,  3,  21). 

Her  horror  of  the  tomb  is  similarly  expressed  in  the  two 

versions. 

"  Or  how  shall  I  that  alway  have  in  so  freshe  ayre  been  bred. 
Endure  the  loathsome  stinke  of  such  an  heaped  store  .  .  . 
Shall  not  the  fryer  and  my  Romeus,  when  they  come, 
Fynd  me  (if  I  awake  before)  ystifled  in  the  tombe?  " 

^  Collier's  Shakespeare's  Library,  Vol.  II,  p.  78. 
^  U.  s.,  p.  70. 


40 


Compare  Shakespeare : 

"  Shall  I  not  then  be  stifled  in  the  vault, 
To  whose  foul  mouth  no  healthsome  air  breathes  in, 
And  there  die  strangled  ere  my  Romeo  comes?"   (11.  33—35). 

Again, 

"  Where  all  my  auncesters  doe  rest,  my  kindreds  common  grave." 

Compare : 

"  Where,  for  this  many  hundred  years,  the  bones 
Of  all  my  buried  ancestors  are  pack'd  "   (11.  40-41). 

Forthwith  Brooke's  Juliet  sees  the  "  carkas  of  Tybalt,"  even  as 
she  beholds  his  ghost  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Shakespearean 
soliloquy.  Doubtless  there  is  a  connection  between  the  solil- 
oquies of  the  two  versions,  and  presumably  the  connection  is 
direct,  although  other  hypotheses  are  possible.  Painter's  trans- 
lation of  Boisteau's  version  of  the  story,  in  the  "  Palace  of 
Pleasure"  (1567),  contains  precisely  the  same  soliloquies 
which  Brooke's  poem  does,  so  similar  that  they  read  like  close 
paraphrases. 

Moreover,  the  evidence  of  the  Dutch  play  "  Romeo  and 
Juliette"  by  Jacob  Struijs,  shown  by  Professor  Fuller^^  to  be 
an  adaptation  of  a  lost  play  used  by  Shakespeare  as  a  source, 
indicates  clearly  that  Shakespeare  received  several  important 
suggestions  from  the  soliloquies  of  the  lost  play.  For  example, 
"  even  in  the  sleeping-potion  scene,  where  in  general  there  is  a 
close  following  of  Boisteau,  Juliette  (of  the  Dutch  piece)  gives 
a  supreme  touch  to  the  force  of  her  love,  when  her  imaginings 
become  too  dreadful,  by  calling  upon  the  name  of  Romeo,  even 
as  in  Shakespeare,  and  by  drinking  the  potion  to  him."^- 
Again,  the  theme  of  the  soliloquy  (III,  2,  1-31)  "  where  Juliet 
is  impatiently  awaiting  for  night  and  for  Romeo  "^^  is  due  to 
the  early  play;  and,  further,  the  detail  of  Romeo's  apostrophe 
to  death  (V,  3,  116,  117)  may  be  attributed  to  the  same 
source.^^ 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  when  Shakespeare  wrote,  the  solil- 

**  Harold  de  Wolf  Fuller:  "  Romeo  and  Juliette,"  Modern  Philology,  Vol. 
IV,  p.  75. 
''  U.  s.,  p.  38. 
^  U.  s.,  p.  40. 


41 

oquies  of  the  play,  the  poem  and  the  story  were  a  firmly  estab- 
lished tradition.  Little  credit  is  due  Shakespeare  for  origi- 
nating the  soliloquies,  but,  inspiring  them  with  his  lyric  genius, 
he  thus  re-created  them. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  briefly  to  summarize  Shakespeare's 
sources.  The  chronicles  furnish  some  material,  but  never  in 
the  form  of  soliloquy.  Plutarch,  on  one  or  two  occasions,  indi- 
cates a  soliloquy  as  such,  merely  mentioning  its  position  and 
character.  Shakespeare  develops  these  hints  with  notable 
results.  Two  classical  dramas  seem  to  have  given  him  some 
ideas  as  to  monologs,  although  the  classical  type  he  more 
honored  in  the  breach  than  the  observance.  Possibly  a  dozen 
plays  in  all  contributed  to  his  use  of  the  soliloquy,  but  only  in 
two  or  three  instances  is  the  influence  significant.  Various 
other  sources  gave  rise  to  Shakespearean  soliloquies,  but  none 
are  of  far-reaching  value,  except  in  the  case  of  "  Romeo  and 
Juliet."  If  our  study  of  sources  led  to  no  other  discovery  than 
this,  it  would  seem  to  justify  itself,  for  here  we  have,  thanks  to 
the  source,  the  highest  conception  of  the  soliloquy  consistently 
maintained, — namely,  the  voicing  in  trance,  reverie  or  anguish 
the  surging  passions  and  thoughts  which  vivify  the  action. 

Having  noted  all  the  ascertainable  sources  which  inspired 
Shakespeare's  soliloquies,  and  having  investigated  their  quanti- 
tative importance,  let  us  turn  our  attention  to  a  brief  critical 
observation  of  their  chronological  development.  Mewed  in  the 
large,  the  soliloquies  naturally  fall  into  chronological  periods, 
each  with  certain  dominant  characteristics, — although,  to  be 
sure,  such  a  classification  cannot  be  absolute,  since  it  has  its 
exceptions. 

The  first  group,  from  "  The  First  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth  " 
to  "  The  Comedy  of  Errors,"  uses  the  soliloquy  as  a  device  for 
telling  the  story.  Often  crudely  narrative  and  histrionically 
grandiose,  the  soliloquy  occasionally  assumes  extremely  arti- 
ficial variations,  as  in  the  case  of  the  overheard  series  of 
"Love's  Labour's  Lost"  (IV,  3,  1-126),  although  in  "The 
Comedy  of  Errors,"  it  is  marked  by  brevity  and  is  reduced  to 
a  mechanism.     In  "  The  First  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth,"  the 


42 

narrative  takes  the  shape  of  exit  speeches ;  in  the  second  and 
third  parts,  villainous  plottings  are  made  prominent ;  while  in 
"  The  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona,"  the  narrative  assumes  the 
genial  guise  of  the  story-telling  of  Launce. 

With  the  second  group,  passion  enters.  From  "  King  John  " 
to  "  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  a  ruling  passion  is  manifest  in  the  solil- 
oquies. There  is  a  single  exception,  "  The  Merchant  of 
Venice,"  which  is  so  crowded  with  incident  that  no  room  is  left 
for  solitary  revery.  The  soliloquies  of  the  first  group  are 
scattered  promiscuously  among  various  characters,  while  those 
of  the  second  show  a  tendency  toward  concentration  in  the 
protagonist.  The  figure  of  the  Bastard  towers  in  "  King 
John,"  owing,  in  no  small  degree,  to  the  vigorous  irony  of  his 
soliloquies.  Of  "Richard  the  Third,"  Professor  Schelling 
pertinently  remarks  that  one  of  its  likenesses  to  Marlowe's 
work  is  the  recurrence  of  the  soliloquies  of  Richard.^*  With 
Marlowean  abandon,  Richard's  diabolical  ambition  dominates 
the  piece  from  initial  exposition  to  catastrophe,  expressing  itself 
in  no  less  than  nine  soliloquies.  "  Richard  the  Second  "  follows 
another  Marlowean  pattern.  He  is  the  passive,  not  the  active 
agent,  and  he  has  only  one  soliloquy,  but  that  the  only  one  of 
importance  in  the  drama.  The  domineering  note  returns  in 
"  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew,"  where  the  conspicuous  solilo- 
quies are  by  the  comic  villian-hero,  Petruchio.  His  ruling 
passion  is  quite  dififerent  from  that  centered  in  the  soliloquies 
of  Romeo  and  Juliet,  even  as  theirs  had  been  sketched,  with 
cartoon  exaggeration,  in  the  mock  soliloquies  of  Pyramus  and 
Thisbe. 

Next  comes  a  little  group,  consisting  of  "  Henry  the  Fourth," 
"Henry  the  Fifth"  and  "The  Merry  Wives,"  in  which  the 
comic  monolog  is  exalted,  Falstaff's  soliloquies  disclosing  his 
embarrassments  and  his  convictions  with  a  fidelity  truly 
ludicrous.  Incidentally,  the  soliloquy  as  a  rhetorical  ornament 
is  used  with  telling  effect,  most  impressively  in  Henry's  lyric 
outburst  on  sleep  (Part  H,  HI,  i,  4-31). 

The  fourth  group  extends  from  "  Julius  Caesar  "  to  "  Meas- 
ure for  Measure."     A  definite  advance  in  the  comprehension 

^*  The  English  Chronicle  Play,  p.  93. 


43 

and  technic  of  the  soliloquy  is  felt,  expressing  itself  in  a  new 
and  more  analytical  interest  in  the  psychology  of  the  solilo- 
quizer. Such  are  the  brooding  and  moralizing  of  Brutus,  the 
sardonic  invective  of  Thersites,  the  subtle  and  involved  analy- 
ses of  the  emotions  by  Helena  and  the  Countess,^^  and  even  the 
self-knowledge  of  Parolles  (IV,  4,  366-376).  Perhaps  most 
conspicuously  is  the  moralizing  element  revealed  in  the  solilo- 
quies of  Angelo.^®  Villain  though  he  is,  his  meditations  are  far 
from  the  spirit  of  the  straightforward  plottings  of  Gloucester, 
Edmund  and  lago.  His  villainy  is  made  possible  by  his  giving 
utterance  to  his  conscience  as  well  as  to  his  passions.  Nor  is 
the  self  analysis  confined  to  the  soliloquies  serious  in  purpose. 
To  be  sure,  "  As  You  Like  It "  is  practically  without  soliloquy, 
doubtless  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  action  is  leisurely  and  the 
dialog  often  reflective,  so  that  the  introduction  of  a  long  mono- 
log  might  destroy  the  charming  atmosphere  of  the  piece  by 
producing  an  effect  of  stagnation.  The  masterly  psychological 
studies  in  soliloquy  of  Benedick  and  Malvolio,  however,  fall 
into  line  with  those  of  Brutus,  Angelo  and  the  rest.  The  analy- 
tical method  is  the  same,  but  the  angle  of  disclosure  is  shifted, 
so  that,  in  the  case  of  "  Much  Ado"  and  "  Twelfth  Night,"  the 
very  seriousness  of  the  soliloquizers  produces  laughter.  Both 
the  comic  and  the  tragic  soliloquies  of  this  period  have  a  curi- 
ously paradoxical  relation  of  attachment  and  detachment  to 
the  main  theme.  They  are  linked  with  the  plot  and  yet  they 
could  easily  be  dropped  from  the  action.  Bearing  on  the  story, 
they  nevertheless  usually  have  the  unity  of  an  isolated  monolog, 
whether  it  is  a  funny  situation,  a  bit  of  moralizing,  or  a  little 
poem  for  recitation.  Perhaps  the  best  illustration  is  the  rimed 
didacticism  with  which  the  Duke  concludes  the  third  act  of 
"  Measure  for  Measure."  It  is  more  vitally  connected  with  the 
plot  than  the  ornamental  soliloquies  of  the  previous  group,  and 
yet  it  is  far  from  the  searching  introspection  of  the  following 
period. 

Indeed  the  distinctive  soliloquies  of  the  next  group,  which 
extends,  we  may  say,  from  "  Hamlet "  to  "  Timon  of  Athens," 

*^  All's  Well,  I,  I,  231-244;  I,  3,  134-141. 

^'^  Measure  for  Measure,  II,  2,  162-187;  II,  4,  1-17;  IV,  4,  21-37. 


44 

do  not  differ  from  their  predecessors  in  kind  but  rather  in 
degree.  Introspection  and  conscience  are  the  dominant  qualities 
of  the  great  sohloquies  of  this  great  period.  Both  elements 
have  their  precursors.  Brutus  is  introspective,  but  his  thought 
takes  the  form  of  generalizations,  while  the  soliloquies  of 
Hamlet  pulse  with  the  very  anguish  of  his  spirit.  Angelo's 
conscience  is  revealed,  but  in  a  sort  of  dilettant  fashion — a 
slight  pain,  as  it  were,  which  disturbs  his  pleasure.  The  con- 
science of  Macbeth  is  a  disease  which  eats  into  his  soul.  Intro- 
spection becomes  wormwood  in  the  misanthropic  meditations 
of  Timon,  tinged  with  the  mannerism  of  classical  precedent. 
Indeed  the  thought  element  of  this  group  is  strained  to  the 
breaking  point.  Hamlet's  broodings  are  close  to  the  verge  of 
insanity,  as  commentators  and  physicians  have  testified,  while 
Lear's  ravings  break  the  bonds.  Now  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  Shakespeare  arrived  at  a  definite  and  inflexible  conception 
of  the  soliloquy  as  a  convention,  even  when  he  was  writing  the 
greatest  soliloquies  ever  penned.  His  understanding  of  the 
possibilities  of  the  soliloquy  had  arrived  gradually,  as  we  have 
!  seen,  but  its  ultimate  expression  was  doubtless  intuitive  rather 
than  conscious.  His  was  an  age  of  creation,  not  criticism,  and 
it  remained  for  subsequent  centuries  to  interpret  the  soliloquy 
and  to  prescribe  rules  for  it.  Consequently  it  need  not  surprise 
\  us  that,  alongside  of  the  inner  struggle  of  Hamlet,  the  soul 
[xcry  of  Othello,  and  Macbeth's  consciousness  of  moral  decay, 
we  have  the  frankly  narrative  monologs  of  the  villains  Iago.and 
Edmund.  However,  even  in  the  simple  expositions  of  their 
villainy,  superbly  independent  of  plausibility,  there  are  notice- 
able the  intellectual  traits  which  dominate  this  group  of  solil- 
oquies. 

The  soliloquies  of  the  last  group  are  miscellaneous  in  con- 
tent and  purpose.  Perhaps  they  may  be  best  designated  quan- 
titatively, but  with  a  conspicuous  exception.  There  is  a  general 
dwindling  of  the  soliloquy,  if  not  in  actual  number  of  lines,  at 
least  in  importance  and  emphasis.  The  use  of  the  soliloquy  in 
"  Pericles "  and  "  Antony  and  Cleopatra "  is  facile,  but  not 
notable.  Except  for  a  bit  of  philosophizing,  "  Coriolanus  "  is 
without  soliloquy.     Then  comes  the  exception,  "  Cymbelinc," 


45 

which  contains  more  soliloquies,  both  in  number  and  quantity, 
than  any  other  Shakespearean  piece.    What  is  the  explanation  ? 

The  reason  lies  in  the  new  type  of  piece  which  Shapespeare 
here  inaugurates.  As  Professor  Thorndike  points  out,  Shake- 
speare is  making  a  radical  departure  into  the  realm  of  "  dra- 
matic romance,"  with  which  he  closes  his  career.^"  The  species 
is  very  artificial,  and  quite  independent  of  naturalistic  effect.  It 
consists  of  a  series  of  episodes  and  adventures,  with  inter- 
spersed monologs  which  fill  the  gaps  of  the  story  and  explain 
the  passions  of  the  characters.  "  Philaster,"  the  model  which 
it  seems  quite  possible  "  Cymbeline  "  imitated,^^  contains  a  large 
number  of  soliloquies,  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  in 
method  as  well  as  quantity,  there  is  a  similarity  in  the  solilo- 
quies of  the  two  pieces.  Both  use  the  soliloquy  to  show  a 
character  going  to  sleep,  both  evince  deft  artistry  in  manipu- 
lating the  soliloquy  as  a  structural  link,  and  throughout,  both 
exalt  the  soliloquy  as  a  revelation  of  passion.  Shakespeare 
goes  his  contemporaries  a  step  better  in  utilizing  the  soliloquy 
for  emotional  efTect,  and  indeed  he  out-Herods  Herod  in  pro- 
fusion and  variety  of  soliloquies.  There  are  expositions  of 
situation  and  character,  villainous  plottings,  explanations  of 
disguise,  apostrophes,  ragings  and  lamentations. 

"  Winter's  Tale,"  though  similar  in  structure  to  ''  Cymbe- 
line," is  very  dissimilar  in  the  use  of  soliloquies.  Here  the 
author  seems  to  be  reverting  to  the  tendency  toward  condensa- 
tion typical  of  the  last  period.  His  source,  the  tale  of 
"  Pandosto,"  contains  a  number  of  long  and  conventional 
meditations  and  laments,-''^  but  he  carefully  eschews  them.  The 
soliloquies  of  "  Winter's  Tale  "  are  not  notable,  and  not  even 
noticeable,  if  we  except  the  comic  monologs  of  Autolycus, 
Likewise,  the  only  conspicuous  quality  of  the  few  soliloquies 
of  "  The  Tempest "  is  their  broad  humor.  "  Henry  the 
Eighth  "  is  also  practically  without  soliloquy,  except  the  two 
farewells  which  Wolsey  makes  to  his  greatness  (HI,  2,  203- 

^'  See  The  Influence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  on  Shakespeare,  Chap- 
ter VIII. 

^  U.  s.,  pp.  157-160. 

^  For  example,  Collier's  Sliakespeare's  Library,  Vol.  I,  pp.  34.  51,  53. 


46 

227,  350-372)-  According  to  the  latest  critical  opinion,*"  the 
probabilities  are  that  not  a  word  of  soliloquy  in  the  drama  was 
written  by  Shakespeare,  but  whether  by  Shakespeare,  Fletcher 
or  another,  the  final  farewell  is  justly  famous  for  its  majestic 
utterance  and  its  touching  sincerity. 

Thus  we  have  traced  the  growth  of  Shakespeare's  soliloquies 
in  six  periods,  the  prominent  characteristics  of  which  may  be 
briefly  suggested,  although  only  partially  indicated,  by  six 
words :  narration,  passion,  comedy,  morality,  introspection  and 
disappearance.  From  crudity  to  perfection  and  thence  to 
nothingness  is  the  history  of  the  technic.  Variety  is  the  strik- 
ing characteristic.  The  master  workman  learns  the  tricks  from 
the  contemporary  playwrights  and  from  his  sources.  He  does 
not  create  new  forms  of  the  soliloquy:  the  address  to  the 
audience  and  the  comic  monolog,  the  prayer  and  the  moralizing 
were  as  old  as  the  beginnings  of  drama;  the  love  lament  and 
the  tragic  revery  flourished  on  the  continent  and  in  the  England 
of  his  youth.  All  these  he  uses.  No  paltry  credit  of  innova- 
tion is  due  Shakespeare,  but  transfiguration  was  his  achieve- 
ment. Despite  the  stage  limitations  of  his  day,  Shakespeare 
succeeded  in  revealing  the  human  mind  in  comic  and  tragic 
isolation,  as  no  one  else  has  ever  done.  Such  is  the  testimony 
of  the  immortal  soliloquies  of  Falstaff  and  Benedick,  Romeo 
and  Juliet,  Brutus,  Hamlet  and  Macbeth. 

*"  See  W.  A.  Neilson's  Cambridge  Edition  of  Shakespeare,  p.  771. 


CHAPTER  III 

The  Shakespearean  Soliloquy  a  Means  of  Exposition 

From  its  inception  to  its  disappearance,  the  soliloquy  has 
been  an  important  factor  in  the  structure  of  the  drama.  The 
term  "  structure  "  excludes  rhetorical  ornaments,  the  narratives 
of  the  buffoon,  comical  and  tragic  musings  and  philosophizings, 
as  well  as  outbursts  of  grief,  rage,  jealousy  and  other  passions, 
when  such  monologs  exist  for  their  own  sake.  Our  present 
consideration  is  the  less  conspicuous  soliloquy,  which,  up  to 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  has  been  freely  employed 
to  tell  the  story  in  action. 

Shakespeare  invents  no  devices  for  this  purpose.  His  usage, 
however,  is  so  comprehensive  that  it  includes  nearly  every 
technical  contrivance  which  precedes  him,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  it  is  so  definitive  that  it  becomes  the  model  for  his  suc- 
cessors. Let  us,  then,  study  the  structural  aspect  of  the  Shake- 
spearean soliloquy,  the  manifestation  and  culmination  of  the 
theatrical  custom  of  ages,  first  as  a  means  of  exposition,  and 
second  as  an  accompaniment  of  the  action.  The  expository 
soliloquy  may  be  subdivided  according  to  the  following  classi- 
fication: (i)  initial  exposition,  (2)  identification,  (3)  disguis- 
ing, (4)  characterization,  (5)  villainy,  and  (6)  narration. 

Initial  Exposition 
The  playwright  has  a  story  to  tell,  many  of  the  details  of 
which  it  is  difficult  to  adapt  to  conversation.  The  audience 
must  have  the  information  in  order  to  understand  the  plot, 
the  character  or  the  situation.  To-day  the  result  is  brought 
about,  as  realistically  as  possible,  in  dialog.  Ibsen,  on  occa- 
sion, has  made  a  virtue  of  necessity,  divulging  the  story,  bit  by 
bit,  throughout  the  production :  witness  the  cumulative  horror 
of  the  revelations  of  "  Ghosts."  In  the  primitive  drama,  how- 
ever, monolog  is  often  the  simplest  and  easiest  method  of 
exposition,  and  the  speech  of  the  character  which  informs  the 

47 


48 

audience  of  the  facts  they  ought  to  know  we  designate  as  the 
"  exposition  monolog,"  borrowing  the  word  from  German 
criticism.^ 

Naturally  the  exposition  monolog  frequently  opens  the 
drama,  for  the  purpose  of  imparting  data  preliminary  to  the 
action  and  necessary  for  a  comprehension  of  the  plot.  Hence, 
the  presentation  speech  of  the  manager  in  the  Hindu  drama,- 
and  the  equally  objective  and  specific  exposition  in  the  prolog 
of  Roman  comedy.^  But  speeches  of  prolog  and  presenter  are 
not  spoken  by  members  of  the  dramatis  pcrsonae,  and  there- 
fore they  are  in  no  sense  soliloquies.  Initial  exposition  mono- 
logs  by  characters  in  the  play  do  occur,  however,  in  early 
dramas  of  India,  China,  Greece  and  Rome.  "  The  Toy-Cart," 
thought  to  be  the  earliest  of  the  extant  Hindu  dramas,  and 
the  "  Ratnavali "  both  begin  with  imposing  exposition  mono- 
logs.*  So  does  the  "  Eumenides "  of  Aeschylus,  when  the 
Pythoness  follows  her  invocation  with  an  introductory  nar- 
rative. This  is  the  only  case  of  the  initial  exposition  mono- 
log  in  Aeschylus,  and  Sophocles  has  none  at  all,  but  in 
Euripides  the  device  is  so  frequent  that  it  practically  consti- 
tutes a  law  of  composition.  It  opens  thirteen  of  his  tragedies,^ 
and  four  of  the  speeches  are  assigned  to  the  protagonist,®  a 
beginning  used  with  telling  effect  by  Marlowe  and  Shakespeare. 
Several  times  Aristophanes  employs  the  monologic  opening,'^ — 
once,  when  Praxagora  of  the  "  Ecclesiazusae  "  hangs  up  a  lamp 
and  proceeds  to  apostrophize  it,  in  clever  burlesque  of  the 
initial  exposition  of  the  Euripidean  heroine. 

"  It  was  not  till  the  time  of  Plautus  and  Terence  that  the 

^  See  "  Der  Shakespearesche  Monolog  und  seine  Spielweise,"  by  Eugen 
Kilian,  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  Vol.  XXXIX,  p.  xvii. 

-  For  example,  Select  Specimens  of  the  Theater  of  the  Hindus,  translated 
by  H.  H.  Wilson,  Vol.  I,  pp.  14-17. 

^  For  example,  the  Captivi  of  Plautus. 

*  Select  Specimens  of  the  Theater  of  the  Hindus,  Vol.  I,  p.  20;  Vol.  II, 
p.  267. 

^  Medea,  Alcestis,  Suppliants,  Heracleidae,  Trojan  Women,  Ion.  Helena, 
Andromache,  Electra,  Orestes,  Iphegenia  among  the  Tanri.  Cyclops,  Phoeni- 
cian  Women. 

"  Helen,  Andromache.  Iphegenia  and  Jocasta  in  Phoenician  Women. 

^  The  Acharnians,  The  Clouds.  Lysistrata.  and  The  Ecclesiacusae. 


49 

Prolog  was  formally  divorced  from  the  body  of  the  drama,  and 
that  an  independent  address  of  the  poet  to  the  audience  pre- 
ceded the  action  of  the  play  itself,"*  The  prolog  does  not 
supplant  the  initial  exposition  soliloquy,  however ;  instead, 
both  are  used  in  the  "  Trinummus,"  "  Bacchides,"  "  Mena- 
echmi,"  "  Captivi,"  "  Amphitryon,"  "  Mercator  "  and  "  Trucu- 
lentus  "  of  Plautus,  and  the  "  Adelphi  "  of  Terence.  Terence's 
"  Phormio "  opens  with  Davus,  a  second  prolog,  as  it  were, 
since  he  is  a  protactic  character,  making  his  appearance  only 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  initial  exposition. 

Seneca,  like  his  master  Euripides,  is  fond  of  the  opening 
monolog.  Sometimes  the  opening  is  prologic  in  nature,  but  in 
several  instances  it  is  closely  akin  to  the  expository  soliloquy, 
notwithstanding  the  presence  of  another  character.  "  Her- 
cules Oetaeus  "®  begins  with  a  long  speech  by  the  protagonist 
which  invokes  the  "  Sator  Deorum "  and  concludes  with  five 
lines  addressed  to  his  companion  Lichas.  Octavia,  weary  of 
existence,  bewails  her  misery  at  the  opening  of  the  tragedy 
bearing  her  name,  and,  but  for  the  fact  that  the  nurse  replies, 
this  would  be  a  soliloquy  of  Elizabethan  stamp.  Likewise  the 
opening  lament  of  Oedipus  is  virtually  a  soliloquy,  although 
*  Jocasta  stands  by  and,  after  his  speech,  chides  him  for  his 
complaints.  The  Senecan  "  Medea "  seems  an  improvement 
over  the  Euripidean,  in  respect  to  the  introductory  soliloquy, 
which  Seneca  assigns  to  the  protagonist.  Her  prayer  to  the 
gods  for  vengeance  is  moving  in  its  passion  and  artistic  in  its 
subtle  revelation  of  the  story. 

It  is  Seneca's  "  Tenne  Tragedies"  (1559-1581)  which  trans- 
mit from  Greece  to  England  the  tradition  of  the  initial  exposi- 
tion soliloquy,  while  the  device  as  introductory  to  the  comic 
plot  is  carried  to  England  in  adaptations  and  translations  of 
Plautus  and  Terence  in  the  early  sixteenth  century;  but,  inde- 
pendent of  classical  influence,  the  initial  exposition  monolog 
appears   in   the   English   miracle   play.     The   York,   Chester, 

^A  Study  of  the  Prolog  and  Epilog  in  English  Literature  from  Shakes- 
peare to  Dryden,  by  G.  S.  B.,  p.  3. 

°  This  and  the  rest  of  the  Tenne  Tragedies  are  Senecan  for  our  purposes, 
as  we  adopt  the  Elizabethan  point  of  view :  see  The  Influence  of  Seneca  on 
Elizabethan  Tragedy,  by  J.  W.  Cunliflfe,  p,  13. 
5 


50 

Coventry  and  Towneley  cycles  all  open  with  speeches  by  Deus, 
in  which  he  tells  who  he  is,  and  briefly  gives  the  Biblical 
setting.^"  The  method  is  crude  but  straightforward.  A 
favorite  guise  of  the  initial  exposition  monolog  in  the  Coven- 
try cycle — and  in  the  Greek  and  Indian  drama,  for  that  matter 
— is  the  prayer.  Sometimes  a  series  of  prayers  opens  a  piece. 
The  lamentation,  another  form  with  Greek  and  Indian  pre- 
decessors, occasionally  tells  the  preliminary  story  of  the 
miracle.  In  the  Coventry  play  of  "  Christ  appearing  to 
Mary,""  there  is  an  effective  opening  monolog  in  which  Mary 
Magdalene  mourns  at  the  tomb.  The  lament  sometimes  attains 
extraordinary  length.  In  one  of  the  York  plays,  Joseph,  sup- 
posed to  be  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  has  a  complaint 
seventy-four  lines  long,  and  in  another  Thomas  bewails  his 
fate  for  one  hundred  and  four  lines.^- 

The  monologic  opening  is  more  frequent  in  the  morality 
than  in  the  miracle,  but  invariably  it  is  so  didactic  in  tone  that 
it  can  scarcely  be  termed  expository.  It  is  usually  in  the  form 
of  a  little  sermon,  preached  directly  to  the  auditors,  as,  for 
example,  the  introductory  discourses  of  Mercy  in  "  Mankind," 
who  exhorts  "  ye  soverans  that  sytt,  and  ye  brothern  that 
stonde  ryghte  uppe."^^ 

Early  English  drama  affords  numerous  illustrations  of  the 
initial  exposition  soliloquy  both  in  tragedy  and  comedy.  As 
an  instance  of  each  may  be  cited  the  love  lament  of  Gismond 
opening  "Gismond  of  Salerne "  (1568)  and  the  genial  in- 
formation imparted  by  Mathew  Merygreeke  at  the  beginning 
of  "Roister  Doister  "  (1552  c).  In  length  of  discourse  and 
facility  of  expression,  both  indicate  classical  inheritance.  The 
"  Klagenmonolog "  of  Gismond  Professor  Brandl  compares 
with  that  of   Seneca's  "  Phaedra,""  and   Professor  Cunliffe 

"  York  Plays,  edited  by  L.  T.  Smith,  p.  i  ;  Towneley  Plays,  re-edited  by 
Geo.  England  and  A.  W.  Pollard,  Early  English  Text  Society,  Extra  Series 
LXXI,  p.  I ;  Ludiis  Conventriae,  edited  by  J.  O.  Halliwell,  London  Shake- 
speare Society,  Vol.  IV,  p.  19;  Chester  Plays,  same  editor  and  publication, 
Vol.  XVII,  p.  8. 

"  Ludus  Coventriae,  p.  360. 

"  York  Plays,  pp.  102,  480. 

"Manly,  Vol.  I,  p.  315. 

"  Quellen  des  Weltlichen  Dramas  in  England  vor  Shakespeare,  p.  C. 


51 

points  out  the  similarity  between  this  soHloquy  and  a  parallel 
lament  in  Dolce's  "Dido"  (V,  i,  37-43).^'^  In  the  case  of 
Merygreeke's  speech,  although  it  bears  a  general  resemblance 
to  the  initial  exposition  of  Roman  comedy,  the  fact  must  not 
be  overlooked  that  the  device  occurs  in  comedies  apparently  in- 
dependent of  the  classics, — in  the  plays  of  John  Heywood,  for 
example. 

Shakespeare's  immediate  predecessors  use  opening  monologs 
sparingly.  Lyly,  Greene  and  Kyd  have  practically  none,  but 
Marlowe's  "Doctor  Faustus,"  "Jew  of  Malta,"  and  "Edward 
the  Second  "  begin  with  notable  soliloquies.  While  the  speech 
of  Faustus  is  a  graphic  depiction  of  the  meditations  of  "the 
studious  artisan,"  Gaveston's  monolog  is  frankly  expository, 
and  that  of  Barabas  is  subtly  so.  Discovered  counting  his  gold 
and  rhapsodizing  over  the  gems  of  India,  the  very  picture  of 
the  soliloquizer  is  exposition  in  itself,  but  deftly  inlaid  in  the 
resplendent  verse  is  the  significant  statement  of  the  fact  that 
the  ships  are  arriving  safe. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  the  vivid  speeches  of  the  protagonists 
Barabas  and  Faustus  suggested  the  daring  opening  of 
"  Richard  the  Third."  This  is  the  only  occurrence  of  the 
initial  exposition  in  Shakespeare,  but  it  seems  to  epitomize  the 
type. 

Gloucester  combines  the  direct  assertion  of  the  Satan  of  the 
miracle  play^^  with  imagery  as  comprehensive  as  that  of  the 
classics : 

"  Now  is  the  winter  of  our  discontent 
Made  glorious  summer  by  this  sun  of  York." 

The  soliloquy  is  remarkable  for  its  easy  transition  from  the 
general  to  the  specific.  It  treats  three  themes :  first,  the  peace- 
ful state  of  the  realm ;  second,  the  speaker's  deformity ;  and 
third,  his  villainy.  His  villainy  directs  itself  against  Clarence 
who  thereupon  makes  his  appearance.  This  is  at  once  an  in- 
troduction to  the  immediate  situation  and  a  key  to  the  entire 
action ;  the  background  of  the  tragedy  is  given,  together  with 

""  Gismond  of  Salerne,"  Publications  of  the  Modern  Language  Association 
of  America,  June,  1906,  p.  443. 

*®  York  Plays,  edited  by  L.  T.  Smith,  p.  22  ;  see  ante,  p.  8. 


52 

a  description  of  the  physical,  mental  and  moral  characteristics 
of  its  leading  figure  and  a  declaration  of  his  purposes.  The 
impracticability  of  the  contrivance  is  evident  when  one  con- 
siders that  an  audience  does  not  become  quiet  during  the  first 
speech  of  a  play,  and  accordingly,  in  this  case,  it  would  miss  a 
vital  explanation.  Perhaps  this  is  the  reason  that  Shakespeare 
does  not  repeat  the  experiment.  Undoubtedly  it  is  the  cause 
of  the  modern  rearrangements  of  the  opening,  the  soliloquy 
being  placed  after  matter  less  significant. 

The  disadvantage  of  the  position  of  the  initial  exposition 
monolog  has  not  prevented  great  dramatists  from  using  it  on 
occasion.  Lope  de  Vega  begins  "El  Major  Alcalde  el  Rey" 
with  a  long  and  imposing  soliloquy  in  which  Sancho  declares 
his  love  in  ravishing  terms.  Moliere  uses  the  device  nine 
times,  conspicuously  in  "  Le  Malade  Imaginaire,"  where  Argan 
is  discovered  sitting  at  a  table,  computing  his  apothecary's 
bill.  Chettle,  Yarrington,  Tourneur,  Jonson,  Dekker,  Middleton 
and  many  others  of  Shakespeare's  contemporaries  avail  them- 
selves of  the  initial  exposition  monolog,  but  only  once  do 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  employ  it.  In  "  The  Knight  of  Malta," 
Mountferrat  indulges  in  a  lover's  lament,  which  includes  a 
grandiose  description  of  his  prowess  and  a  declaration  of  his 
hatred.  Dryden,  too,  abandons  this  method  of  exposition,  with 
a  single  exception,  the  soliloquy  of  Cleomenes.  Indeed,  aside 
from  a  number  of  classical  or  Elizabethan  imitations,  the  form 
falls  into  disuse  soon  after  Shakespeare.  In  the  early  nine- 
teenth century,  there  are  a  few  inconsequential  revivals — the 
opening  of  B.  W.  Procter's  "  Mirandola,"  for  example.  The 
philosophical  meditations  with  which  Goethe's  Faust  begins  the 
drama  fall  in  line  with  those  of  Marlowe's  Faustus,  but  they 
are  not  primarily  expository.  Again,  the  opening  of  Byron's 
"Manfred"  is  reminiscent  of  Goethe's  "Faust,"  and  it  con- 
tains a  hint  of  narration. 

These  instances  illustrate  the  fact  that  the  initial  exposition 
soliloquy  has  proved  especially  alluring  to  the  closet  dramatist. 
Samuel  Daniel  devotes  the  entire  first  act  of  his  "  Cleopatra  " 
(pr.  1594)  to  the  impressively  phrased  lamentation  of  the  pro- 
tagonist.    Many  of  the  nineteenth  century  poets  have  used  the 


53 

contrivance :  Byron,  Beddoes,  Coleridge,  and  Miss  Mitford, 
Shelley  in  his  "  Prometheus  Unbound,"  Browning  in  "  Pippa 
Passes  "  and  Maeterlinck  in  "  Alladine  and  Palomedes."  Dis- 
pensing with  introductory  props,  the  form  is  a  picturesque 
challenge  to  the  imagination.  That  is  one  charm  of  Glou- 
cester's soliloquy. 

Identification 

One  function  of  practically  all  of  the  initial  exposition  solilo- 
quies, and  of  many  others  besides,  is  that  of  identification. 
Gloucester  does  not  state  his  name,  but  he  carefully  analyzes 
his  personality.  The  villain  Edmund  of  "Lear"  devotes 
nearly  all  of  his  first  soliloquy  to  the  establishing  of  his  iden- 
tity and  proclaims  himself  "the  bastard  Edmund"  (I,  2,  17). 
Belarius,  in  his  crudely  expository  monolog  in  "  Cymbeline  "  is 
even  more  specific :  "  Myself,  Belarius,  that  am  Morgan  called  " 
(III,  3,  106).  Likewise,  Autolycus:  "My  father  named  me 
Autolycus,  who  being,  as  I  am,  littered  under  Mercury,  was 
likewise  a  snapper-up  of  unconsidered  trifles"  ("Winter's 
Tale,"IV,  3,  25-27). 

The  comical  announcement  of  the  speaker's  name  is  as, old 
as  Plautus.  In  "  Stichus,"  Gelasimus  informs  the  audience 
that  '  when  little,  his  father  gave  him  his  name,  because,  even 
from  a  tiny  child,  he  was  a  droll  chap  '  (II,  i).^'  The  English 
Vice  sometimes  interprets  his  name  in  classical  fashion, — so 
Ambidexter  in  "  Cambises  "  : 

"  My  name  is  Ambidexter :    I   signifie   one 
That  with  both  hands  finely  can  play.'"* 

The  methods  of  establishing  the  identity  of  the  monologist  in 
early  English  4rama  are  delightfully  naive.  The  York, 
Chester,  Coventry  and  Towneley  cycles  begin  with  the  simple 
statement :  "  Deus  sum."  In  the  play  of  "  The  Prophets,"  each 
prophet  announces  himself  thus :  "  I  am  the  prophete  called 
Isaye,"  "  I  am  David,"  "  I  Jonas,"  and  so  on.^^     In  the  same 

"  Cf.  the  openings  of  the  Mcnaechmi  and  the  Capti-A. 
'*  Manly,  Vol.  11,  p.  i68. 
^^  Ludus  Coventriae,  p.  65. 


54 

manner,  the  characters  of  the  St.  George  plays  declare  their 
names.-^ 

The  monologs  of  all  the  moralities,  early  and  late,  are  largely 
descriptive  of  the  speakers  and  abound  with  self-identifications. 
Avarice  in  "Respublica"  (1553  c.)  preludes  the  information 
as  to  his  identity  in  this  wise : 

"  But  now  what  my  name  is,  and  what  my  purpose — 
Taking  you  all  for  friends — I  fear  not  to  disclose."^ 

The  palmer  in  John  Heywood's  "  merry  interlude  of  the  foure 
PP  "  frankly  presents  himself :  "  I  am  a  palmer,  as  ye  se."^^ 
Bishop  Bale,  who,  like  Heywood,  often  uses  monologic  self- 
identification,  furnishes  a  rather  amusing  instance  in  his  "  King 
Johan : " 

"  To  shew  what  I  am  I  thynke  yt  convenyent : 
Johan,  Kyng  of  Ynglond,  the  cronyclys  doth  me  call."^ 

In  later  plays  the  self -identification  is  not  so  apparent,  but  it 
persists  as  long  as  the  initial  exposition  soliloquy. 

Indentification  of  characters  other  than  the  speaker  is  some- 
times accomplished  in  monolog.  At  the  opening  of  Tourneur's 
"Revenger's  Tragedy"  (pr.  1607),  Vindici  identifies  the  mem- 
bers of  the  ducal  train  as  they  pass  by.  A  primitive  example 
of  the  same  contrivance  is  the  prolog  of  the  "  Captivi "  of 
Plautus,  where  the  monologist,  without  any  attempt  at  artifice, 
points  out  the  characters  to  the  spectators.  This  theatrical 
device,  however,  is  only  remotely  allied  with  the  soliloquy,  but 
a  favorite  conclusion  of  the  soliloquy  serves  to  identify  others, 
— namely,  the  prepared  entrance. 

Although  not  peculiar  to  the  soliloquy,  the  prepared  entrance 
occurs  more  frequently  there  than  in  dialog.  In  Indian,  Greek 
and  Roman  dramas,  as  well  as  those  of  modern  nations,  there 
are  many  examples  of  the  soliloquizer's  concluding  with  the 
remark  that  So-and-so  is  approaching,  an  easy  way  of  ac- 
quainting the  spectator  with  the  new  arrival.     Since  there  is 

"  Manly,  Vol.  I,  pp.  289-290,  293. 
'^  Lost  Tudor  Plays,  p.  182. 
^  Manly,  Vol.  I,  p.  484. 
^  Manly,  Vol.  I,  p.  526. 


55 

nothing  intricate  about  the  device,  and  no  variety  in  its 
manipulation,  a  few  ilhistrations  from  Shakespeare  will  suffice 
to  show  its  stereotyped  character : 

"  See,  here  he  comes  "  ("  Comedy  of  Errors,"  II,  2,  6).   ' 

"Here  Clarence  comes"  ("Richard  III,"  I,  i,  41). 

"  Here  comes  my  messenger  "  ("  Midsummer-Night's  Dream,"  III,  2,  4). 

"But  who  comes  here?"  ("Taming  of  the  Shrew,"  II,  i,  38). 

"  But  here  she  comes  "  ("  Taming  of  the  Shrew,"  II,  i,  182). 

"  O  here  comes  my  nurse  "  ("  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  III,  2,  31). 

"O  here  he  comes"   ("Merry  Wives,"  III,  s,  60). 

"  But  here  the  lady  comes  "  ("  Twelfth  Night,"  IV,  3,  21). 

,"  But  here  they  come  "  ("  Othello,"  II,  3,  63).   -" 

"  Look  where  she  comes  "  ("  Othello,"  III,  3,  277). 

"  Look  where  he  comes  "  ("  Othello,"  III,  3,  330). 

"  But  who  comes  here  ?  "  ("  Lear,"  IV,  i,  9). 

"  Hush  !  here  comes  the  lords  of  Tyre  "  ("  Pericles,"  I,  3,  9). 

"Here  come  moe  voices"  ("  Coriolanus,"  II,  3,  132). 

"  Lo,  here  she  comes  "  ("  Cymbeline,"  III,  3,  22). 

Those  who  are  wont  to  regard  Shakespeare  as  never  repeat- 
ing himself  may  well  consider  the  above  list  of  soliloquy  end- 
ings. Moreover,  none  of  these  formulas  are  original :  count- 
less examples  of  the  same  words  may  be  found  in  his 
predecessors.  Yet  so  simple  is  the  phrase,  "  Here  he  comes," 
with  its  slight  variations,  that  it  is  quite  inconspicuous  and  far 
from  monotonous  as  the  great  poet  uses  it.  On  occasion,  he 
gives  the  formula  a  humorous  turn.  Antipholus  of  Ephesus 
announces  the  approach  of  his  Dromio  with  the  observation, 
"Here  comes  the  almanac  of  my  true  date"  ("Comedy  of 
Errors,"  II,  i,  41).  Edmund  breaks  off  his  ruminations  on 
astrology  with:  "Edgar — (Enter  Edgar)  and  pat  he  comes 
like  the  catastrophe  of  the  old  comedy"  ("Lear,"  I,  2,  145). 
Even  more  abruptly  are  Timon's  misanthophic  musings  inter- 
rupted by  the  appearance  of  Apemantus.  "  More  man?  "  mut- 
ters Timon.  "Plague,  plague!"  (IV,  3,  197).  As  in  this 
case,  the  prepared  entrance  may  merely  call  attention  to  the 
new  arrival,  although  it  usually  states  his  name.  There  is  no 
equivocation  in  the  self-identification  of  a  soliloquizer,  how- 
ever :  he  informs  the  audience  who  he  is. 


56 

Disguising 

The  soliloquizer  who  explains  his  disguise  performs  the  same 
function.  The  spectators  must  thoroughly  understand  who 
the  disguised  one  is,  and  accordingly  a  monolog  is  often  intro- 
duced to  reveal  the  facts.  Almost  everywhere  that  disguisings 
occur,  there  may  be  found  explanatory  soliloquies.  Comedy  is 
especially  rich  in  them.  Aristophanes  uses  the  device  when 
Blepyrus  mentions  in  monolog  that  he  has  on  his  wife's  ker- 
chief and  her  Persian  slippers.-*  Jupiter  in  the  "Amphi- 
tryon" of  Plautus  (III,  i)  carefully  instructs  the  audience  as 
to  his  metamorphosis,  while  Pleusides  of  the  "  Miles  Glori- 
ousus  "  (IV,  7)  explains  that  his  disguise  is  for  the  sake  of 
love,  a  motive  often  employed  in  Elizabethan  drama. 

The  romantic  and  comic  plays  of  Shakespeare's  predecessors 
occasionally  contain  soliloquies  explanatory  of  disguise. 
Whetstone's  "Promos  and  Cassandra"  (pr.  1578)  has  two,^^ 
and  Lyly's  "  Gallathea  "'®  a  like  number.  "  Mucedorus  "  (pr. 
1598)  has  a  scene  in  which  the  hero,  while  soliloquizing,  puts 
on  his  disguise  in  full  view  of  the  spectators  ;-^  and  Gloucester 
in  "  Look  About  You"  (pr.  1600)  adjusts  a  false  beard,  as  he 
announces,  "  From  pursuivant  I'll  turn  a  hermit  now."^^  Since 
this  piece  abounds  in  disguisings,  there  are  a  number  of  solilo- 
quies to  explain  them.  The  examples  might  be  extended,  were 
there  any  distinguishing  features  worthy  of  note.  In  general, 
it  may  be  remarked  that  the  assertion  of  disguise  is  usually  less 
ostentatiously  effected  than  that  of  identity,  as  indicated  by 
Shakespeare's  usage. 

He  employs  the  soliloquy  several  times  for  the  sake  of  ex- 
plaining the  disguise.  In  "  The  Third  Part  of  Henry  the 
Sixth,"  King  Henry  makes  a  point,  not  of  his  evident  dis- 
guise, but  of  his  real  identity.  "  No,  Harry,  Harry,  'tis  no 
land  of  thine,"  he  laments  (III,  i,  15),  and  the  Keeper  who 
overhears  him  divines  that  "this  is  the  quondam  king"  (III, 

"*  Comedies,  translated  by  Wm.  J.  Hickie,  Vol.  II,  p.  633. 

=»  Six  Old  Plays,  Vol.  I,  pp.  39,  98. 

*"  Works,  edited  by  R.  W.  Bond,  Vol.  II,  pp.  439,  441. 

^  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  VII,  p.  240. 

=»  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  VII,  p.  466. 


57 

I,  23).  Kent,  in  "Lear"  (I,  4,  1-7)  refers  to  his  disguising 
as  having  '  razed  his  Hkeness,'  but  he,  too,  emphasizes  his 
identity,  aspostrophizing  himself  as  "  banish'd  Kent." 

Shakespeare  has  a  trick  of  preparing  his  audience  for  a  dis- 
guise before  it  occurs.  Ford  of  the  "  Merry  Wives "  an- 
nounces, "I  have  a  disguise  to  sound  Falstafif "  (II,  i,  245). 
In  "Lear,"  Edgar,  not  content  with  the  statement  that  he 
purposes  to  change  his  appearance,  proceeds  to  describe  his 
"  make-up  " : 

"  My  face  I'll  grime  with  filth, 
Blanket  my  loins,  elf  all  my  hairs  in  knots, 
And  with  presented  nakedness  out-face 
The  winds  and  persecutions  of  the  sky  "  (II,  3,  9-12). 

Further,  he  transforms  his  voice,  showing  how  it  will  sound  in 
the  new  role.  "  Poor  Turlygod !  poor  Tom  !  "  he  cries.  After 
this  elaborate  explanation,  the  audience  must  surely  remember 
his  concluding  remark,  "  Edgar  I  nothing  am."  The  soliloquy 
is  not  idle  chatter,  for  the  next  time  Edgar  enters,  it  is  in  the 
character  of  "  poor  Tom,"  and,  were  it  not  for  this  vivid  pro- 
log, the  spectators  would  be  at  a  loss  to  understand  the  scene. 

Equally  important  for  the  plot  of  "  Cymbeline  "  is  Cloten's 
explanation  of  his  disguise  (IV,  i).  His  iteration  of  the  fact 
that  he  is  wearing  the  garments  of  Posthumous  assumes  signi- 
ficance when  Imogen  weeps  over  his  beheaded  trunk.  Her 
lament,  attuned  to  romance  rather  than  tragedy,  is  an  appeal  to 
pity  rather  than  terror,  and  it  is  necessary,  for  the  desired 
effect,  that  no  doubt  be  left  as  to  the  actual  identity  of  the 
corpse  she  bewails ;  hence  the  preliminary  information.  Imo- 
gen's soliloquy  explaining  her  own  disguise,  "  I  see  a  man's 
life  is  a  tedious  one"  (III,  6,  i),  is  in  a  serio-comic  vein,  a 
tone  assumed  by  other  heroines  when  explaining  their  mascu- 
line attire.  Such  are  the  soliloquies  of  Aspatia  in  "The 
Maid's  Tragedy"  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  (V,  4)  and  of 
Florimel  in  Dryden's  "Secret  Love"  (V,  i).  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  frequently  employ  the  device, — once  in  the  soliloquy 
of  a  man  disguised  as  a  maid  ("Monsieur  Thomas,"  IV,  8), 
again  of  a  servant  in  his  master's  clothes  ("Women  Pleased," 
I,  3),  again  of  a  gentleman  disguised  as  a  rustic  ("Women 


58 

Pleased,"  IV,  i),  and  so  on.  The  vogue  of  this  type  of 
soHloquy  seems  to  have  diminshed  with  the  v^aning  of  the  dra- 
matic romance. 

Characterization 

It  is  only  a  step  from  disguise  to  characterization :  in  one 
case  the  soliloquizer  tells  who  he  is  supposed  to  be,  and  in  the 
other  he  discloses  his  real  personality.  Naturally,  the  revel- 
ation of  character  is  of  much  greater  importance,  and  indeed, 
if  interpreted  in  the  large,  it  constitutes  one  of  the  most  vital 
functions  of  the  soliloquy.  All  notable  soliloquies  indicate 
something  of  the  speaker's  nature.  Often  the  portrayal  is 
keenly  introspective,  but  neither  the  subtly  psychological  an- 
alysis nor  the  unobtrusively  incidental  revelation  concern  the 
present  inquiry  into  the  exposition  monolog.  The  self-char- 
acterizing soliloquizer,  on  occasion,  gives  a  frank  and,  as  it 
were,  impersonal  account  of  his  character. 

Excluding,  for  the  moment,  the  villain's  soliloquy,  there  is 
only  one  flagrant  case  of  the  self-characterizing  monolog  in 
Shakespeare,  that  of  Prince  Hal  ("Henry  IV,"  Part  I,  i,  2, 
219-240).  This  much  discussed  speech  exists  for  the  sake  of 
exposition.  The  Prince's  true  worth  and  his  ultimate  respect- 
ability must  be  understood  at  the  start.  He  alone  knows  of 
his  intention  to  '  throw  off  this  loose  behavior,'  and  conse- 
quently he  divulges  the  secret.  Making  allowances  for  the 
free  use  of  the  expository  monolog  in  Elizabethan  days,  the 
modern  critic  is  nevertheless  inclined  to  consider  this  instance 
unjustified.  The  prince  is  not  speaking  as  a  choral  interlude, 
but  as  himself,  and  accordingly  his  character  suffers  from  his 
coldly  impersonal  cognizance  of  his  present  delinquencies  and 
his  egoistic  purpose  to  use  them  as  a  background  for  future 
glorification.  "  Surely  this  is  a  great  mistake  of  Shakespeare's," 
says  Professor  Dowden ;  "  surely  in  so  far  as  the  prince  did  act 
from  this  motive,  he  was  a  charlatan  and  a  snob."-^ 

Self-characterization  has  usually  been  effected  in  comic 
rather  than  serious  monolog.  The  parasite  of  Roman  comedy 
is  addicted  to  this  manner  of  presenting  himself, — at  the  open- 

^  The  Mind  and  Art  of  Shakespeare,  p.  211. 


59 

ing  of  the  "  Captivi  "  of  Plautus,  for  example.  So  the  Enghsh 
clown  throughout  his  career,  including  his  appearance  in  Shake- 
speare,^" is  wont  to  talk  about  himself.  The  serious  aspect 
of  the  monolog  develops  in  the  moralities,  which  abound  in 
long  discourses  on  the  virtues  or  vices  represented,  as  John 
Skelton's  "  Magnificence  "^^  affords  ample  illustration.  After 
the  advent  of  classical  and  continental  influences  on  the  drama, 
tlie  self-characterization  becomes  more  subtle  and  less  direct. 
Occasional  instances  of  the  old  type  may  be  found,  however, 
even  in  modern  times.  Victor  Hugo  makes  a  startling  use  of 
it  in  "  Hernani  "  (1830),  when  Don  Carlos  (IV,  2)  reveals  a 
complete  change  of  character. 

To  be  sure,  characterization  of  people  other  than  the  speaker 
has  often  been  accomplished  in  soliloquy.  There  are  some 
notable  examples  in  Shakespeare.  Viola's  charming  comment 
on  the  Clown  in  "Twelfth  Night"  (III,  i,  67-75)  is  delicately 
penetrative ;  and,  in  an  entirely  different  vein.  Lady  Macbeth's 
analysis  of  her  husband's  nature  is  keenly  searching  (I,  5, 
16-26).  Whether  or  not  Macbeth  possesses  "the  milk  of 
human  kindness,"^-  the  whole  tragedy  proves  her  soliloquy  a 
masterly  delineation  of  his  frailty.  Shakespeare  does  not 
hesitate  to  show  a  soliloquizer  duped  in  his  estimate  of  char- 
acter, however.  Both  Cassio  and  Othello  commend  lago's 
honesty  (III,  i,  43;  III,  3,  258),  but  the  dramatist  is  careful 
to  precede  their  observations  with  lago's  own  assertion  of 
villainy.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  rather  curious,  but  obviously 
expository,  that  the  villains  credit  the  objects  of  their  hatred 
with  their  true  merits.  Thus  the  cruel  Queen  of  "  Cymbeline  " 
admits  Pisanio's  constancy  (I,  5,  75),  the  scoundrel  Edmund 
acknowledges  that  he  has  a  noble  brother  ("Lear,"  I,  2,  195), 
afid  lago  grants  Othello  "of  a  free  and  open  nature"  (I,  3,1 
405),  and  again  "of  a  constant,  loving,  noble  nature"  (II,  ^ 
I,  298). 

^  See  pp.  loi-iio  of  this  dissertation. 

"  Poetical   Works,   edited  by   Alexander   Dyce,   Vol.   I,   pp.   226,   247,    252, 
257,  273. 

"  See  W.  W.  Story's  Excursions  in  Art  and  Letters,  p.  225. 


60 

Villainy 

The  most  significant  form  of  the  self-characterizing  solilo- 
quy is  that  of  the  plotting  villain — a  device  of  ancient  lineage. 
Samsthanaka  in  "  The  Toy  Cart "  gloats  and  plots''^  in  much 
the  same  fashion  that  Satan  does  in  the  miracles  and  moralities. 
We  have  already  noted  the  Satanic  soliloquy  of  the  miracle  as 
a  prototype  of  Gloucester's  machinations.''*  The  moralities 
preserve  the  tradition.  The  gleeful  monologs  of  Lucifer  in 
"  Wisdom  Who  is  Christ  "^^  reveal  a  certain  dashing  devil- 
try, while  the  devil  of  "Lusty  Juventus "  ( 1547-53 c.)  not 
only  plots  but  also  discloses  his  hypocrisy.^**  Likewise  in 
Skelton's  "  Magnificence,"  Cloaked  Colusion  candidly  lays 
bare  his  hypocrisy  in  a  soliloquy  of  eighty-six  lines,^^  and 
Hypocrisy  again  reveals  himself  in  a  long  monolog  in  "  The 
Conflict  of  Conscience"  by  Nathaniel  Woodes  (pr.  1581).^* 
The  soliloquy  of  the  villain  reappears  in  "  Nice  Wanton," 
when  Worldly  Ambition,  with  the  villain's  stage  laugh, 
exults  over  the  downfall  of  the  heroine.^^  Marston's  Piero 
in  "Antonio's  Revenge"  (pr.  1602)  has  the  same  diabol- 
ical laugh:  "Antonio  lives:  umph:  how  long?  ha,  ha!  how 
long?"*" — a  laugh  reechoed  by  Eleazer  in  "Lust's  Dominion" 
(pr.  1657),*^  and  the  villain  Baradas  of  "Richelieu"  (1839) 
is  wont  to  accompany  his  gloatings  with  the  same  diabolical 
"  Ha,  ha !  "  It  may  be  worthy  of  a  passing  note  that  the  late 
Thomas  Kean  followed  Gloucester's  soliloquy,  "  Was  ever 
woman  in  this  humor  woo'd  "  (I,  2,  228-264)  with  a  peal  of 
fiendish  laughter. 

The  majority  of  the  villains  preceding  Gloucester  are  pain- 
fully explicit  in  their  monologic  revelations,  but  there  are  a 
few  conspicuous  exceptions,  such  as  the  stealthy  Ateukin  of 

^Select  Specimens  of  the  Theater  of  the  Hindus,  pp.  143,  166. 

^Ante,  pp.  8,  51. 

^^  Digby  Mysteries,  edited  by  F.  J.  Furnivall,  pp.  150,  157. 

^  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  II,  pp.  62,  68. 

^  Works,  edited  by  Dyce,  Vol.  I,  p.  247. 

'«  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  VI,  p.  45- 

^^  Manly,  Vol.  I,  p.  475. 

•"  Works,  edited  by  Bullen,  II,  i,  p.  123. 

"  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  120. 


61 

Greene's  "James  the  Fourth"  and  Marlowe's  "Jew,"  the 
crafty  Barabas.  Brand  in  "  The  Death  of  Robert  Earl  of 
Huntington"  (1598)  swears  "by  my  villainy,"  as  he  calmly 
describes  the  poisoning  he  purposes,^^  and  with  commonplace 
directness  the  murderers  of  "  Two  Lamentable  Tragedies " 
(pr.  1601)  plan  their  crimes.*^ 

Shakespeare  does  not  hesitate  at  a  frank  avowal  of  villainy. 
Aaron  in  "Titus  Andronicus  "  announces  in  monolog  (II,  3, 
1-9)  that  his  gold  "  will  beget  a  very  excellent  piece  of  vil- 
lainy." "  Why,  I  can  smile  and  murder  whiles  I  smile," 
declares  Gloucester  in  "The  Third  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth" 
(III,  2,  182).  He  determines  on  his  ambition  for  the  crown, 
satirically  laments  his  deformity,  admits  his  hypocrisy  and 
plots  the  destruction  of  those  in  his  path,  boasting  that  he  can 
"  set  the  murderous  Machiavel  to  school."  The  whole  speech, 
seventy-two  lines  in  length,  is  a  majestic  prelude  to  the  solilo- 
quies of  "  Richard  the  Third,"  the  opening  of  which  is  even 
more  explicit  in  self-characterization.  Here  Gloucester  de- 
scribes himself  as  "subtle,  false  and  treacherous"  and  pro- 
claims his  determination  "  to  prove  a  villain."  Mr.  Brandes 
relates  that,  when  J.  L.  Heiberg  refused  to  produce  "  Richard 
the  Third  "  at  the  Royal  Theater  at  Copenhagen,  "  he  doubted, 
justly  enough,  the  psychological  possibility  of  this  phrase."** 
Critics  have  often  caviled  at  it,  and  justly,  as  Mr.  Brandes 
says,  from  a  psychological  point  of  view.  As  a  dramaturgic 
device,  however,  it  is  simple  and  effective.  Only  Gloucester 
knows  of  his  villainy,  and,  accordingly,  he  reveals  it  at  the 
outset  in  no  unmistakable  terms.  Throughout  the  action,  he 
keeps  the  audience  informed  as  to  his  diabolical  intentions.*^ 
A  certain  histrionic  glamor  is  attained  in  the  monolog  in  which 
gloating  is  substituted  for  plotting,  the  famous  "Was  ever 
woman  in  this  humor  woo'd?"  (I,  2,  228-263).  Again,  with 
all  the  candor  of  Hypocrisy  of  the  morality-play,  Gloucester 
lays  bare  his  double  dealing: 

"  Hazlitt's  Dodslcy,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  304. 

"  Old  English  Plays,  edited  by  Bullen,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  19,  24. 

^William  Shakespeare,  p.  127. 

**  For  example,  I,  i,  145-162;  IV,  2,  61-66;  IV,  3,  37-43. 


62 

"  And  thus  I  clothe  my  naked  villainy 
With  odd  old  ends  stolen  forth  of  holy  writ, 
And  seem  a  saint,  when  most  I  play  the  devil  "  (I,  3,  336-8). 

lago  is  equally  explicit  but  less  ornate  in  his  plottings.  Ex- 
cept for  the  ornamental  couplets  with  which  they  conclude,  his 
first  two  soliloquies  are  purely  expository,  stating  in  so  many 
words  his  hatred  of  the  Moor,  iterating  the  cause  of  this 
hatred, — to  many  critics  an  insufficient  motive, — and  selecting 
Cassio  as  the  tool  for  wreaking  vengeance  (I,  3,  389-410;  II, 
I,  295-321).  The  next  monolog  is  entirely  expository,  giving 
the  situation  in  explanation  of  the  ensuing  scene  (11,3,50-63). 
lago's  fourth  soliloquy,  "  What's  he  then  that  says  I  play  the 
villain?"  (II,  3,  342-368),  admits  his  own  villainy  and  hatches 
more  of  it,  with  the  audacity,  if  not  the  bravura,  characteristic 
of  Gloucester.  Here,  as  in  the  case  of  Gloucester's  determi- 
nation to  prove  a  villain,  we  must  admit  with  Professor  Camp- 
bell, that,  "  in  making  lago  characteristize  his  reasons  as  '  di- 
vinity of  hell,'  perhaps  the  poet  oversteps  the  limit  of  psycho- 
logical truth."*''  Finally  lago  attains  poetic  utterance  (III,  3, 
321-329).  In  his  generalizations  on  jealousy,  only  one  verse 
of  exposition  occurs,  "  I  will  in  Cassio's  lodging  lose  this  nap- 
kin;" and  his  last  bit  of  soliloquizing  (IV,  i,  45-48)  sounds  a 
brief  note  of  exultation. 

Although  the  soliloquies  of  the  instigator  of  the  by-plot  of 
"  Lear  "  do  not  occupy  the  conspicuous  position  accorded  those 
of  Gloucester  and  lago,  Edmund's  comments  are  also  down- 
right in  their  revelation  of  villainy, — especially  in  his  first  and 
last  soliloquies,  "Thou,  Nature,  art  my  goddess"  (I,  2,  1-22), 
and  "To  both  these  sisters  have  I  sworn  my  love"  (V,  i, 
55-69).  Edmund,  however,  does  not  acknowledge  his  villainy 
as  such.  Equally  complacent  is  the  dastardly  Cloten  of  "  Cym- 
beline,"  whose  nefarious  plottings  indicate  his  nature  more 
plainly  than  self-assertion  (III,  5,  132-150;  IV,  i,  1-27). 
Such  schemings  for  the  lawless  gratification  of  passion  still 
persist  in  second  rate  melodrama.     A  striking  soliloquy  on  this 

^  Tragic  Drama  in  Aeschylus,  Sophocles  and  Shakespeare,  p.  239.  See 
also  the  trenchant  observations  on  this  point  by  E.  E.  Stoll,  "  Anachronism 
in  Shakespeare  Criticism,"  Modern  Philology,  April,  1910,  Vol.  VII,  p.  561. 


63 

theme  occupies  the  greater  part  of  the  third  act  of  "Antony" 
(1831),  the  best  constructed  play  by  the  elder  Dumas. 

The  Shakespearean  villain  is  not  always  diabolically  direct 
in  self-assertion.  Unlike  Edmund  and  Cloten,  Proteus  ("Two 
Gentlemen,"  11,6,  1-43)  and  Angelo  ("  Measure  for  Measure," 
II,  2,  162-187)  both  admit  their  evil  intentions,  but  strive  to 
excuse  them  in  the  name  of  love.  The  king  in  "  Hamlet "  re- 
veals his  pernicious  purpose  in  ambiguously  regal  verbiage 
(IV,  4,  60-70).  Macbeth's  "To  be  thus  is  nothing"  (III,  i, 
48-72)  indicates  a  psychological  attitude  which  makes  crime 
possible,  but  his  wicked  designs  are  so  unobtrusively  portrayed 
that  they  are  scarcely  related  to  the  expository  soliloquy.  Once 
he  states  a  definite  purpose, — "I  go  and  it  is  done;"  (II,  i, 
62)  but,  preceded  by  the  vision  of  the  dagger  and  accompanied 
by  the  tolling  of  the  bell,  the  soliloquy  bears  little  resemblance 
to  the  bald  declarations  of  preceding  murderers.  Subsequently, 
however,  visions  and  bell-tollings  become  conventionalized 
paraphernalia  of  soliloquies,  especially  in  the  terroristic  plays 
of  the  romantic  revival, — "The  Castle  Spectre"  (1797)  of  M. 
G.  Lewis,  for  example  (IV,  2). 

Lady  Macbeth's  great  soliloquies  are  like  those  of  her  hus- 
band in  that  the  phraseology  is  far  removed  from  common 
speech.  Her  monologs  at  the  opening  of  the  fifth  scene  reveal 
her  the  she-villain  in  the  "  grand  style."  The  pseudo-masculine 
vigor  of  Lady  Macbeth's  assertions  are  not  dissimilar  to  those 
of  the  soliloquizing  Ragan  in  the  old  "  Leir,"  who  affirms  that 
it  is  an  easy  matter  "  to  give  a  stab,  or  slit  a  paltry  windpipe," 
and  who,  contemptuous  of  man  and  yet  longing  to  unsex  her- 
self, cries  out,  "  O  God,  but  I  had  been  made  a  man!  "*^  The 
Duchess  of  Gloucester  in  "The  Second  Part  of  Henry  the 
Sixth  "  expresses  the  same  feeling : 

"  Were  I  a  man,  a  duke,  and  next  of  blood, 
I  would  remove  these  tedious  stumbling  blocks 
And  smooth  my  way  upon  their  headless  necks  "  (I,  2,  63-65). 

It  is  significant  that  Shakespeare  does  not  follow  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  soliloquizing  she-villain  in  his  "  Lear,"  and  indeed, 
*'  Six  Old  Plays,  p.  454. 


r 


64 

with  the  exception  of  this  httle  speech  by  the  Duchess  and  a 
somewhat  similar  one  by  Tamora  in  "Titus  Andronicus  "  (II, 
3,  188-191),  Lady  Macbeth  is  the  only  woman  to  give  vent  to 
villainous  thoughts  in  Shakespeare's  drama. 

The  plotting  villain  states  his  intention  to  act.  This  is  a 
phase  of  the  exposition  monolog  very  frequently  assigned  to 
other  characters.  Hamlet  resolves  on  the  play  (II,  2,  623- 
634),  Cassius  determines  the  means  of  seducing  Brutus  (I,  2, 
312-326),  Isabella  plans  to  appeal  to  her  brother  to  sacrifice 
himself  (II,  4,  171-187), — these  intentions  and  many  more  are 
set  forth  in  soliloquy.  The  same  device  is  occasionally  used  to 
dispose  of  a  character:  thus  Pistol  ("Henry  the  Fifth,"  V,  i, 
85^4)  and  Parolles  ("All's  Well,"  IV,  3,  366-376)  determine 
on  their  future  careers. 

Narration 

The  expository  soliloquy  has  been  used  as  long  as  the  solilo- 
quy has  existed,  not  only  for  indicating  events  of  the  future, 
but  also  of  the  past  and  the  present.;-  The  narrative  of  the  past^/ 
appears  in  classical  and  early  English  drama  most  often  as  the     \J' 
initial    exposition    monolog,    but    it    becomes    more    frequent  ,iv 
throughout  the  action,  until,  in  Elizabethan  days,  it  is  the  play- 
wright's* favorite  method  for  obviating  all  difficulties  of  story- 
telling.    Whenever  anything  is  to  be  explained,  a  character 
steps  forth  with  the  information  for  the  audience. 

Shakespeare's  narrative  soliloquies  are  well  nigh  innumer- 
able. The  monologs  of  the  three  parts  of  "  Henry  the  Sixth  " 
are  verbosely  narrative,  while  those  of  "  The  Comedy  of 
Errors  "  deftly  exhibit  facets  of  the  main  plot,  after  the  man- 
ner of  classical  comedy,  but  with  much  greater  condensation. 
The  Courtezan's  summary  of  events  (IV,  3,  82-97),  for  exam- 
ple, is  as  crisply  expository  as  any  of  the  monologs  of  Plautus 
or  Terence.  The  Elizabethan  narrative  soliloquy,  like  that  of 
Plautus  and  Terence,  often  recounts  dialog.  A  curious  in- 
stance is  afforded  by  Tyrrel's  description  of  the  killing  of  the 
princes  in  "  Richard  the  Third,"  as  told  him  by  the  two  mur- 
derers (IV,  3,  I,  22).  Instead  of  presenting  their  conversa- 
tion, the  playwright  evidently  thought  it  more  effective  to  have 
it  repeated  by  a  third  person. 


65 

Frequently  it  is  necessary  to  show  a  character's  understand- 
ing of  a  situation,  and  manifestly  this  is  most  expeditiously 
accomplished  in  soliloquy.  Sebastian's  astonished  narrative 
("Twelfth  Night,"  IV,  3,  1-21)  and  Diana's  clear  comprehen- 
sion of  the  intrigue  of  "All's  Well"  (IV,  2,  67-76)  leave  no 
doubt  regarding  their  attitudes.  Perhaps  the  most  unobtrusive 
exposition  is  attained  in  Hamlet's  first  soliloquy  (I,  2,  129- 
159),  which,  though  ostensibly  a  passionate  outburst  on  the 
weariness  of  life,  conveys  indelibly  the  information  that  his 
mother,  within  a  month  after  her  good  husband's  funeral,  has 
married  his  wicked  brother.  Usually  such  necessary  informa- 
tion is  bluntly  obtruded.  So  Timon's  financial  embarrassments 
are  crudely  set  forth  in  two  soliloquies  (II,  i,  1-13;  II,  2, 
1-8),  and  his  loss  of  friends  is  evidenced  by  another  (III,  3, 
36-40).  Sometimes  the  entire  plot  is  epitomized  by  a  solilo- 
quizer. Thus  Viola  reviews  the  love-chain  of  "  Twelfth 
Night": 

"  My  master  loves  her  dearly ; 
And  I,  poor  monster,  fond  as  much  on  him  ; 
And  she,  mistaken,  seems  to  dote  on  me  "  (II,  2,  34-36). 

Likewise,  with  a  little  more  elaboration,  the  plight  of  Imogen 
is  summarized  ("  Cymbeline,"  II,  i,  61-70).  Such  monologs 
are  not  inserted  for  the  sake  of  telling  the  audience  something 
new,  but  rather  for  gathering  up  the  threads  of  the  plot  and 
emphasizing  the  main  issue. 

Shakespeare  resorts  to  crass  story-telling  in  the  dramatic 
romances.  The  crudity  of  Belarius's  account  of  his  foster- 
sons  is  accentuated  by  the  use  of  apostrophe.  He  follows  an 
apostrophe  to  Cymbeline  with  the  definite  statement,  "At  three 
and  two  years  old,  I  stole  these  babes"  (III,  3,  loi),  and,  a 
moment  later,  he  calls  upon  his  dead  wife  in  order  to  impart 
the  additional  information,  "Thou  wast  their  nurse;  they  took 
thee  for  their  mother."  Equally  patent  is  the  vision  which 
Antigonus  of  "  The  Winter's  Tale  "  describes  in  order  to  tell 
of  the  antecedents  and  identity  of  the  babe  he  carries,  as  well 
as  the  reason  for  abandoning  it  (III,  3,  15-58). 

The  narrative  soliloquy  is  not  confined  to  past  events.  On 
rare  occasions,  it  reveals  contemporary  happenings — a  device 
6 


66 

used  especially  for  indicating  the  progress  of  a  battle.  In 
"  The  Third  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth,"  York's  "  The  army  of 
the  Queen  hath  got  the  field"  (I,  4,  1-26),  and  the  King's 
"This  battle  fares  like  to  the  morning's  war"  (II,  5,  1-54) 
perform  this  function.  Shakespeare  generally  employs  dialog 
for  his  battle  effects,  but  Macbeth  has  four  brief  monologs,*^ 
which,  accompanied  by  hurried  entrance  and  exit  and  brand- 
ishing of  sword,  suggest  the  stir  of  the  fight.  A  better  instance 
is  furnished  by  Kyd's  "Jeronimo"  (1587  c.)  when  Andrea 
gives  this  graphic  pictorial  stimulus  for  the  imagination : 

"  Soldiers  drop  down  as  thick  as  if  Death  mowed  them  ; 
As  scythe-men  trim  the  long-haired  ruffian  fields, 
So  fast  they  fall,  so  fast  to  fate  life  yields. "^° 

This  monolog  performs  in  words  the  office  which  modern 
scenery  permits  in  action — the  tumbling  corpses  in  the  battle 
scene  of  Rostand's  "  Cyrano,"  for  example. 

The  old  dramatists  sometimes  found  it  convenient  to  have  the 
soliloquizer  announce  the  scene,  a  fact  indicated  by  the  setting 
and  the  program  of  the  modern  play.  Thaliard  in  "  Pericles  " 
observes,  "So  this  is  Tyre,  and  this  the  court"  (I,  3,  i). 
Coriolanus  enters  with  the  remark,  "A  goodly  city  is  this 
Antium"  (IV,  4,  i),  and  he  proceeds  to  apostrophize  the  city, 
a  device  used  by  Plautus  at  the  opening  of  the  second  act  of 
the  "  Bacchides."  Aristophanes  specifies  the  location  with  even 
greater  precision,  when  he  has  Dicaeopolis  of  "  The  Achar- 
nians  "  say,  "  These  are  the  boundaries  of  my  market-place."^^ 

In  Greek  and  Roman  tragedy,  exalted  descriptions  of  nature, 
rather  than  specific  locations,  are  given  by  soliloquizers,  a  tradi- 
tion inspiring  Elizabethans  with  some  exquisite  descriptions. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  ancient  Sanskrit  drama  abounds 
in  similar  passages.  Charudatta,  the  protagonist  of  "  The 
Toy-Cart,"  soliloquizes  on  an  impending  storm^^  with  varied 
and  colorful  similes — a  much  more  graphic  word-painting  than 
the  monologic  treatment  of  the  same  theme  in  "  The  Winter's 

"V,  7,  1-4,  11-13.  14-23;  V,  8,  1-3. 

«  Hazlitfs  Dodsley,  Vol.  IV,  p.  388. 

''°  Bohn  Library,  Vol.  I,  p.  29. 

"  Select  Specimens  of  the  Theater  of  the  Hindus,  Vol.  I,  p.  90. 


67 

Tale  "  (III,  3,  49-56).  In  the  "  Sakuntala""  there  is  a  fervid 
description  of  the  moon  setting  and  the  sun  rising,  not  wholly 
incomparable,  as  to  poetic  effect,  with  Friar  Laurence's  "  The 
gray-ey'd  morn  smiles  on  the  frowning  night"  (II,  3,  1-8). 
To  be  sure,  nature  treatment  in  the  drama  has  never  been  con- 
fined to  soliloquies,  but  perhaps  in  them  it  finds  its  best  oppor- 
tunities. Certainly  the  playwright  chooses  monolog  rather 
than  dialog  when  he  wishes  to  tell  the  audience  the  exact  set- 
ting. "  Romeo  and  Juliet "  affords  another  instance,  when 
Romeo  makes  the  imaginary  scene  vivid  in  his  account  of  the 
apothecary  and  his  shop,  which  concludes  with  the  remark, 
"As  I  remember,  this  should  be  the  house"  (V,  i,  55). 

Another  form  of  narration  which  is  generally,  though  not 
invariably,  found  in  monolog,  may  be  defined  by  the  means 
rather  than  the  end, — namely,  the  reading  of  a  letter.  The 
formula  is  simple :  the  soliloquizer  reads  a  letter  aloud  and 
comments  on  it.  Thus  two  points  in  the  exposition  are  effected, — 
first,  the  letter  itself  which  usually  bears  directly  on  the  plot, 
and  second,  the  speaker's  attitude  toward  the  new  aspect  of 
the  story,  an  added  element  of  interest.  The  device  is  a  fa- 
vorite one  in  romantic  drama.  "  Gismond  of  Salerne  "  ( 1568) 
has  an  ingenious  trick,  transcribed  from  Boccaccio,'^^  serving 
to  introduce  the  letter.  Guisharde,  while  soliloquizing,  acci- 
dentally breaks  the  cane  Gismond  has  given  him,  and  he  finds 
her  letter  inclosed  within  (III,  3,  1-88).  Usually  the  letter  is 
introduced  clumsily.  In  "Arden  of  Feversham  "  (pr.  1592), 
Michael  remarks,  "  I  have  gotten  such  a  letter  as  will  touch  the 
painter :  and  thus  it  is."^*  He  proceeds  to  read  it  and  is  over- 
heard. Marlowe  several  times  avails  himself  of  the  letter- 
reading  soliloquy,  most  conspicuously  at  the  opening  of  "  Ed- 
ward the  Second,"  where  the  king's  letter,  together  with  Gave- 
ston's  comment  thereon,  furnishes  an  admirable  exposition  of 
the  first  part  of  the  plot. 

^^Translation  of  Monier  Williams,  p.  8i. 

"J.  W.  Cunliffe,  "Gismond  of  Salerne,"  Publications  of  the  Modern  Lan- 
guage Association  of  America,  June,  1906,  pp.  438-439.  A  linguistic  point  in 
the  soliloquy.  Dr.  Cunliffe  shows,  indicates  that  Boccaccio,  and  not  Painter, 
is  the  source. 

"  Edited  by  Nicolaus  Delius,  p.  28. 


68 

Shakespeare  uses  the  contrivance  a  number  of  times,  but  not 
always  for  purely  expository  purposes.  The  letter-reading 
soliloquies  of  Hotspur  (II,  3,  1-39),  Brutus  (II,  i,  44-58), 
Malvolio  (II,  5,  91  ff.)  and  Lady  Macbeth  (I,  5,  1-31)  all 
influence  their  respective  plots,  but  indirectly  through  char- 
acter, the  emphasis  being  on  the  psychological  attitude  of  the 
soliloquizer  toward  the  letter.  Hotspur's  anger,  the  credulity 
of  Brutus,  Malvolio's  gullibility  and  the  ambition  of  Lady 
Macbeth  are  so  interesting  in  themselves  that  they  are  not 
expository  in  a  primary  sense.  On  the  other  hand,  Mistress 
Page's  reading  of  the  love  letter  from  Falstaff  ("Merry 
Wives,"  II,  I,  1-31),  the  Countess's  perusal  of  the  missive 
from  her  runaway  son  ("All's  Well,"  III,  2,  21-34),  and  Pisa- 
nio's  contemplation  of  his  master's  written  command  ("Cym- 
beline,"  III,  2,  1-22), — these  are  directly  and  vitally  connected 
with  the  plot.  The  instance  in  "  Cymbeline  "  is  very  theatrical. 
Pisanio  is  maddened  by  the  letter  which  directs  him  to  murder 
his  mistress.  Her  entrance  at  this  juncture  and  her  subsequent 
perusal  of  the  note  are  rendered  effective  and  intelligible  by  the 
letter-reading  soliloquy  which  opens  the  scene. 

The  convention  as  here  set  forth,  however,  does  not  com- 
pare, as  to  complexity  or  theatricality,  with  its  use  in  Calderon's 
"  El  Medico  de  su  Honra."^^  There  Gutierre,  while  solilo- 
quizing, draws  a  curtain  and  discovers  his  wife  Mencia  writing. 
He  seizes  her  letter  and  she  faints.  He  reads  the  letter,  and, 
after  writing  a  note  for  her,  goes  off.  She  recovers,  and, 
during  a  long  soliloquy,  she  finds  her  husband's  missive,  and 
reads  aloud  his  assurance  of  her  death.  Thus  a  tremendously 
sensational  situation  is  constructed  by  means  of  a  series  of 
soliloquies  in  which  letter-reading  is  an  important  feature. 

English  playwrights  have  not  favored  such  complications 
of  the  device,  but,  as  a  simple  means  of  exposition,  it  has  been 
employed  at  intervals,  even  in  the  melodrama  of  recent  years. 
John  Tobin  uses  it  in  "The  Curfew"  (III,  3),  a  successful 
acting  piece  of  the  early  nineteenth  century,  and,  at  the  end  of 
the  century,  Pinero  resorts  to  it  a  number  of  times,  notably  in 
"The  Cabinet  Minister"  (i89o).-'« 

'^^  Bibliotecallassica,  edited  by  D.  M.  Menendez  Pelayo,  Vol.  XXXVI,  p.  92. 
''"Walter  H.  Baker  edition,  pp.  3,  44,  103. 


69 

Critical  Comment 
As  soon  as  critics  notice  the  soliloquy,  they  object  to  it  as  a 
means  of  exposition.     "  First  of  all,"  says  the  Abbe  cl'Aubignac 
in  his  ''  Pratique  du  Theatre"  (1657),"  "an  actor  must  never 
make  a  Monologue,  which  he  addresses  to  the  Audience,  with  a 
design  to  inform  them  of  something  they  are  to  know;  but 
there  must  be  found  out  something  in  the  Truth  of  the  Action 
that  may  be  colourable  to  make  him  speak  in  that  manner. 
Else  'tis  a  fault  in  the  Representation,  of  which  both  Plautus 
and    Terence    are    guilty."     Dryden's    "Essay    of    Dramatic 
Poesy"    (1665)    takes    even    a    stronger    stand    against    the 
monolog,  "to  which  unnatural  way  of  narration  Terence  is 
subject  in  all  his  plays."^'     He  disapproves  of  the  soliloquy 
with  which  Dorias  opens  the  fourth  act  of  the  "  Eunuch,"  "  be- 
cause she  was  presumed  to  speak  directly  to  the  audience,  and 
to  acquaint  them  with  what  was  necessary  to  be  known,  but 
yet  should  have  been  so  contrived  by  the  poet  as  to  have  been 
told  by  persons  of  the  drama  to  one  another."     Today  Mr. 
Archibald  Henderson  expresses  the  same  conviction,  when  he 
characterizes  this  type  of  soliloquy  as  reprehensible,  "  because 
it  seeks  to  give  information  which  may  be  more  veraciously 
imparted  in  more  natural  ways."^^     D'Aubignac  leaves  the  in- 
ference that  the  narrative  soliloquy  has  a  right  to  existence  if 
properly  motived,  while  Dryden  would  apparently  reform  it 
altogether,  suggesting  dialog  in  its  stead.     Dryden's  is  unques- 
tionably the  modern  point  of  view,— yet  modern  only  in  the 
restricted  sense  of  the  last  few  years ;  in  the  eighties  there  were 
many   conspicuous   survivals   of  the  narrative   monolog — Mr. 
Posket's  long  account  of  the  night's  adventures,  for  example, 
in  the  third  act  of  Pinero's  "  Magistrate  "  (1885).    Whether  or 
not  we  approve  of  the  soliloquy  as  a  revelation  of  thought  and 
passion,  it  is  certain  that  we  condemn  the  expository  soliloquy. 
The  chief  cause  for  the  discredit  into  which  the  soliloquy  has 
fallen  of  late,  according  to  Dr.  Eugen  Kilian,  is  to  be  attributed 
to  the  "  Expositionsmonolog  " — a  lame  makeshift,  he  styles  it, 

"  Englished  as  The  Whole  Art  of  the  Stage  in  1684,  p.  58- 
^Dryden's  Essays  on  the  Drama,  edited  by  Wm.  Strunk,  Jr.,  p.  31. 
^'  North  American  Review,  March,  1909,  p.  440. 


70 

for  informing  the  audience  in  soliloquy  of  that  which  clumsy 
technic  is  unable  to  convey  in  other  fashion — and  the  "  Selb- 
stcharakterisierungsmonolog,"  revealing  the  purposes  of  the 
author.^"  Dr.  Kilian  does  not  consider  the  narrative  monolog 
in  any  form  a  true  soliloquy,  because  it  implies  a  consciousness 
of  the  audience — the  same  objection  raised  by  the  Abbe 
d'Aubignac  and  John  Dryden.  The  great  majority  of  Shake- 
speare's soliloquies,  says  the  German  commentator,  are  guilty 
of  this  fault. 

Our  study  corroborates  the  truth  of  the  assertion  that  the 
majority  of  Shakespeare's  soliloquies  are  expository. 
Whether  or  not  this  is  to  be  deplored,  depends  largely  on  the 
point  of  view.  Measured  by  the  historical,  rather  than  the 
modern,  standard,  there  is  ample  justification  for  Shakespeare. 
As  Dr.  Kilian  points  out,  there  is  a  vast  diiference  between 
the  Elizabethan  stage  and  the  present  one.  With  spectators  on 
three  sides  of  the  stage,  as  well  as  upon  it,  close  contact  with 
the  audience  was  inevitable ;  but,  neverthless,  very  rarely  can 
the  Shakespearean  monologist  be  convicted  of  directly  address- 
ing his  hearers.''^ 

The  Shakespearean  narrative  soliloquy,  however,  implies  an 
audience,  and  this,  critics  agree,  is  a  defect  in  technic.  What 
may  be  said  in  extenuation  of  Shakespeare's  usage?  First, 
let  us  remember,  the  spectators  are  on  three  sides  of  the  actors ; 
second,  the  Elizabethan  audience  demand  a  large  amount  of 
story,  and  the  exposition  monolog  is  a  most  expeditious  medium 
for  presenting  and  clarifying  plots  and  by-plots ;  and  third, — an 
important  fact  for  the  historical  critic, — the  various  devices  for 
revealing  identity,  disguise,  character,  intention  and  narration 
in  general  are  at  hand  for  Shakespeare's  use.  They  have  an 
ancient  lineage,  and  all  are  passed  on  to  posterity. 

The  question  is,  what  does  Shakespeare  do  with  his  tradi- 
tional materials?  In  almost  every  case,  he  improves  them. 
The  initial  exposition  monolog  he  uses  only  once,  but  then  with 
masterly  precision  and  daring.  Self-identification  is  a  crude 
contrivance  at  best,  but  he  finds  it  convenient  on  three  or 

^Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  Vol.  XXXIX,  p.  xvii. 
"  See  pp.   103--107   of  this   dissertation. 


71 

four  occasions,  and  he  employs  the  prepared  entrance  freely. 
There  are  a  half  dozen  graceful  explanations  of  disguise  in 
Shakespeare's  dramas,  not  conspicuously  superior,  however,  to 
those  of  predecessors  or  successors.  The  same  may  be  said 
of  the  few  monologs  in  which  he  indicates  the  place,  or  furthers 
the  plot  by  means  of  letter-reading.  After  all,  these  are,  for 
the  most  part,  inconsequential  instances  of  the  expository 
soliloquy.  Prince  Hal's  self-characterization,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  unpleasantly  conspicuous.  Here  is  an  artistic  blemish, 
not  because  the  speaker  characterizes  himself,  but  because  he 
fails  to  do  so.  As  we  have  observed,  his  attempt  to  establish 
his  respectability  produces  the  reverse  impression,  and  he  is 
hoist  with  his  own  petard. 

In  regard  both  to  quantity  and  content,  however,  there  are 
only  two  conspicuous  varieties  of  the  Shakespearean  exposi- 
tion monolog,  those  of  the  plotter  and  of  the  narrator.  Simple 
narration  is  the  primary  object  of  a  large  percentage  of  Shake- 
speare's soliloquies.  It  constitutes  practically  the  sole  purpose 
of  his  early  monologs,  but  even  here  the  author  improves  on 
his  models.  Thus,  though  all  of  the  monologs  of  "The 
Comedy  of  Errors  "  are  as  dogmatically  narrative  as  those  of 
Plautus  and  Terence,  they  are  shorter  and  more  pointed. 
Again,  the  story  of  the  murder  which  we  have  noted  in 
"Richard  the  Third"  is  unlike  the  crude  narratives  of  con- 
temporary drama  in  that  it  is  told  with  pathos  and  sympathy. 
Hamlet's  first  soliloquy  marks  the  culmination  of  monologic 
exposition,  so  deftly  is  the  speaker's  feeling  intermingled  with 
facts  intended  for  the  audience.  In  the  dramatic  romance, 
especially  in  "  Cymbeline,"  the  playwright  grows  careless  of 
verisimilitude,  and  inserts  long  monologs,  baldly  narrative,  for 
the  elucidation  of  the  complicated  intrigue.  While  these  were 
doubtless  acceptable  to  their  audience,  they  cannot  but  make  the 
judicious  grieve. 

The  villains  and  other  characters  who  state  their  intention 
to  act,  seem  to  have  a  better  dramaturgic  reason  for  existence. 
The  narrators  might  tell  their  stories  to  their  fellows;  not 
so  the  plotters.  William  Congreve's  defence  of  this  species 
of    soliloquy   in   his    "Epistle    Dedicatory"    to   his    "Double 


72 

Dealer"  (1694)  is  worthy  of  serious  consideration:  "It  often- 
times happens  to  a  man  to  have  designs  which  require  him  to 
himself,  and  in  their  nature  cannot  admit  of  a  confidant. 
Such,  for  certain,  is  all  villainy;  and  other  less  mischievous 
intentions  may  be  very  improper  to  be  communicated  to  a 
second  person."  Congreve's  contention  is  a  fair  statement  of 
the  problem  of  the  old  playwright.  In  recent  years,  the  de- 
piction of  villainy,  modified  by  the  realistic  movement  in 
letters,  has  not  been  dependent  upon  the  soliloquy.  In  fact, 
the  disappearance  of  the  melodramatic  villain  is  coincident 
with  the  waning  of  his  monolog,  and  in  the  cheap  theaters 
where  he  persists,  he  still  soliloquizes.  Shakespeare's  villains 
and  his  host  of  other  characters  with  "  less  mischievous  in- 
tentions "  show  the  contrivance  as  thoroughly  practicable  for 
the  Elizabethan  stage.  Doubtless  the  outcome  of  the  devil's 
monologs  in  miracle  and  morality,  the  soliloquies  of  Gloucester 
and  lago  are  primarily  theatrical  rather  than  psychological, 
although  they  are  projected  with  vigor  and  grace ;  but,  without 
them,  two  of  the  greatest  acting  dramas  of  the  world  would  be 
nought.  Indeed,  if  the  strictures  of  modern  criticism,  or  of 
that  of  Dryden,  or  even  of  the  Abbe  d'Aubignac,  were  literally 
applied  to  Shakespeare,  and  all  of  the  expository  soliloquies 
were  cut, — in  such  a  case,  many  of  the  comedies  would  be 
hopelessly  mutilated  and  a  majority  of  the  tragedies  would  be 
rendered  unintelligible.  The  supposition,  preposterous  in 
itself,  nevertheless  indicates  the  significance  of  the  Shake- 
spearean soliloquy  as  a  means  of  exposition. 


CHAPTER   IV 

The   Shakespearean    Soliloquy   an    Accompaniment   of 

THE  Action 
The  soliloquy  is  of  value  in  the  structure  of  the  drama  not 
only  as  a  means  of  direct  exposition  but  also  as  an  accompani- 
ment of  the  action.  The  latter  function  is  performed  m  three 
ways:  as  an  explanation  of  accompanying  "business";  as  an 
accompaniment  of  an  entrance,  or  of  an  exit,  or  as  a  link  be- 
tween the  two;  and  as  a  highly  complex  convention  with 
pantomimical  accessories,  the  overheard  soliloquy. 

Miscellaneous  "  Business  " 
"  Business  "  is  an  elastic  term  applied  to  almost  any  physical 
action  occurring  on  the  stage.     When  an  action  is  assigned  to 
a  solitary  character,  the  spectators  must  thoroughly  understand 
its  meaning,  and,  as  a  rule,  this  can  only  be  accomplished  by 
soliloquy.     To   illustrate:   if   Arthur   in   "King  John"   were 
merely  to  leap  from  a  height  and  then  lie  inanimate,  the  on- 
lookers would  be  mystified  and  consequently  annoyed  by  the 
proceeding.     Although  Shakespeare  condensed  the  two  parts 
of  "The  Troublesome  Reign"  into  one,  he  wisely  retained, 
with   only   slight   alterations,   Arthur's   explanatory   monolog, 
"The  wall  is  high,  and  yet  will  I  leap  down"  (IV,  3,  i-io), 
concluding  with  a  dying  gasp,  after  the  jump,  "Heaven  take 
my  soul,  and  England  keep  my  bones!"     The  act  of  leaping 
was  explained  in  soliloquy  as  long  ago  as  the  "  Toy  Cart "  and 
as  recently  as  Byron's  "  Manfred."     Sthavaraka  opens  a  scene 
in  the  Hindu  drama  (u.  s.,  p.  165)  with  a  monolog  preliminary 
to  jumping  from  a  balcony,  while  Manfred's  long  soliloquy 
reveals  his  intention  to  suicide  by  leaping  from  a  clifif  (I,  2).  ^ 

Many  other  actions  occur  in  Shakespeare  with  monologic 
interpretations.  We  have  already  observed  how  the  author 
improves  upon  his  predecessor  by  explaining  Prince  Hal's  put- 

73 


74 

ting  on  the  crown. ^  Even  the  most  obvious  motions  have  to  be 
carefully  elucidated  for  the  benefit  of  the  spectators.  There- 
fore Aaron  announces  that  he  is  burying  gold  ("Titus  An- 
dronicus,"  I,  3,  1-9),  and  Edmund  that  he  is  wounding  his 
arm  ("  Lear,"  II,  i,  35-37).  The  squeezing  of  the  magic  juice 
on  the  eyes  of  the  sleepers  in  "  A  Midsummer-Night's  Dream  " 
is  accompanied  by  explanatory  incantations,^  as  indeed,  to  cite 
a  remote  parallel,  is  the  poisoning  of  the  cloak  by  Seneca's 
Medea  (IV,  2). 

Most  impressive  of  all  Shakespearean  soliloquies  which  ac- 
company "  business  "  is  that  of  lachimo  in  Imogen's  chamber 
("Cymbeline,"  II,  2,  11-51).  The  situation  is  furnished  by 
Boccaccio,  but  Shakespeare  adds  many  touches,  such  as  the 
removal  of  the  bracelet.  It  is  lachimo's  voicing  his  thoughts 
and  passions,  as  well  as  his  writings  of  the  inventory,  which 
intensifies  the  effectiveness  of  the  episode.  A  not  dissimilar 
contrivance  is  the  long  soliloquy  of  the  thief  in  "  The  Toy- 
Cart  "  (pp.  62-64)  who  breaks  into  a  chamber,  inventories  its 
contents,  and  ponders  over  the  sleepers.  Monologic  accom- 
paniment of  "  business  "  in  the  presence  of  a  character  asleep 
must  have  been  keenly  relished  by  the  spectators  of  the  Nor- 
wich Whitsun  play  on  the  Creation  and  Fall  (1533  c.)  when 
the  Pater  removed  a  rib  from  the  sleeping  Adam  and  con- 
verted it  into  Eve.^ 

Sleep 
The  monolog  is  often  used  to  indicate  sleep — either  prepara- 
tion for  sleep,  talking  in  the  sleep,  or  apostrophizing  the 
sleeper.  Examples  of  the  last  form  occur  in  the  speeches  of 
"  Cymbeline  "  and  "  A  Midsummer-Night's  Dream  "  which  we 
have  just  been  discussing.  These  pieces  also  show  the  solilo- 
quizer going  to  sleep.  Such  is  the  purpose  of  Imogen's  prayer 
(II,  I,  8-10),  and  such  the  monologs  of  Demetreus  (III,  2, 
82-87;  426-430),  Lysander  (III,  2,  413-420),  Helena  (III, 
2,  431-436),  and  Hermia  (III,  2,  442-447).     Helena  thus  pre- 

'  See  ante,  p.  29.  , 

*II,  2,  27-34,  66-83;  ni,  2,  448-463. 

*  Manly,  Vol.  I,  p.  i. 


76 


ludes  her  slumber; 


"  Sleep,  that  sometimes  shuts  up  sorrow's  eye, 
Steal   me   awhile   from   mine   own   company." 

"  The  Toy-Cart "  affords  an  instance  of  this  type  of  soHloquy 
(P-  59)  >  Shakespeare's  predecessors  occasionally  employ  it,* 
Racine  opens  "  Les  Plaideurs  "  with  a  comic  version  of  the 
device,  while  Mr.  Bernard  Shaw  uses  it  most  realistically  to 
close  the  first  act  of  his  "Arms  and  the  Man"  (1894),  where 
the  hero,  only  partially  awake,  strives  in  vain  to  fight  off  the 
drowsiness  which  finally  overcomes  him.  The  scene  in 
"  Lear "  in  which  Kent  is  shown  in  the  stocks  concludes  in 
much  the  same  fashion  (II,  2,  177-180). 

Talking  in  the  sleep  is  by  no  means  an  uncommon  form  of 
monolog.  "  The  strings,  my  lord,  are  false,"  says  the  partially 
awakened  Lucius  ("Julius  Caesar,"  IV,  3,  292).  Shakespeare 
also  uses  the  device  as  a  transition  from  slumber  to  soliloquy ; 
Hermia's  soliloquy  (II,  2,  145-156)  begins  in  this  way,  and  so 
does  Imogen's  (IV,  2,  291-295).  Talking  in  the  sleep  occurs 
in  pieces  as  widely  divergent  as  "  The  Clouds "  of  Aristo- 
phanes,^ "The  Toy-Cart"  (p.  63),  Lessing's  "Minna  von 
Barnhelm"  (I,  i),  Schiller's  "  Rauber "  (II,  2),  the  "  Caius 
Gracchus"  of  Sheridan  Knowles  (IV,  4),  and  the  "Ulysses" 
of  Mr.  Stephen  Phillips  (III,  i).  To  be  sure,  this  type  of 
monolog,  like  the  sleep-walking  scene  of  Lady  Macbeth, 
scarcely  ranks  as  soliloquy,  since  it  is  not  conscious  utterance ; 
but  it  seems  worth  a  note  in  passing,  in  connection  with  the 
other  monologic  contrivances  for  the  portrayal  of  sleep. 

A  common  device  in  Elizabethan  times  is  the  soliloquy  over 
the  sleeper.  In  this  category  fall  lachimo's  sensuous  descrip- 
tion of  Imogen  (II,  i,  14-23),  Oberon's  grotesque  spell  over 
Titania  (II,  2,  27-34),  and  the  exquisite  apostrophe  of  Brutus 
to  the  sleeping  Lucius  (II,  i,  229-233  ;  IV,  3,  267-272).  These 
speeches  are  not  merely  rhetorical  ornaments :  they  also  inform 
the  audience  that  the  recumbent  figure  is  asleep.  Shake- 
speare's  immediate  predecessors   and   successors   often  make 

*  For  example,  Lyly's  "  Endimion,"  Works,  edited  by  Bond,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  38. 

*  Comedies,  translated  by  Wm.  J.  Hickie,  Vol.  I,  p.  118. 


76 

use  of  the  contrivance.  Lyly's  "  Endimion  "  has  an  apostro- 
phizing incantation  (Vol.  II,  p.  38),  a  trick  frequently  repeated 
in  "A  Midsummer-Night's  Dream."  Most  concise  is  Light- 
born's  soliloquy  in  Marlowe's  "  Edward  the  Second :"  "  He 
sleeps"  (V,  5).  Greene's  "Friar  Bacon  and  Friar  Bungay" 
contains  a  comic  apostrophe  to  the  sleeper  (Sc.  XI),  Beau- 
mont's "Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle"  a  romantic  one  (III, 
i),  while  Evadne's  stirring  apostrophe  to  the  king  whom  she 
is  about  to  murder,  in  "The  Maid's  Tragedy"  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  (V,  2),  is  used  for  tragic  effect.  In  imitation  of 
Elizabethan  technic,  the  device  recurs  in  the  drama  of  the 
romantic  revival.  Shelley's  "  Cenci  "  (1819)  contains  a  typical 
instance  (V,  3),  and  the  fourth  act  of  Talfourd's  "Ion" 
(1836)  opens  with  a  situation  parallel  to  that  in  "The  Maid's 
Tragedy." 

A  variant  of  the  soliloquy  over  the  sleeper  is  the  soliloquy 
over  one  who  has  fainted,  a  device  used  at  intervals  from  the 
eighth  to  the  nineteenth  century.  Makaranda  in  the  Hindu 
drama  "  Malati  and  Madhava "  apostrophizes  his  friend  who 
has  fainted,®  in  much  the  same  fashion  that  Claude  Melnotte 
in  "  The  Lady  of  Lyons  "  calls  upon  his  beloved  who  has  lost 
consciousness.  The  nearest  approach  to  the  convention  in 
Shakespeare  is  the  Nurse's  summoning  of  Juliet  (IV,  5,  1-15), 
who,  lying  in  a  trance,  is  first  mistaken  as  asleep  and  then  as 
dead.  This  is  an  unusual  occurrence,  however,  as  apostrophes 
to  the  sleeping  or  dead  are  almost  invariably  given  not  only  for 
emotional  effect  but  also  for  informing,  or  re-informing,  the 
audience  as  to  the  real  condition  of  the  prostrate  person. 
Swoon,  sleep  and  death  are  difficult  to  differentiate  on  the 
stage,  and  hence  the  necessity  of  verbal  explanation.  Thus, 
after  the  soliloquy  of  Enobarbus  ("Antony  and  Cleopatra," 
IV,  9),  the  eavesdropping  soldier  suggests,  "He  sleeps,"  but 
the  Sentry  retorts,  "  Swoons  rather,"  and  a  moment  later  he 
announces,  "  The  hand  of  death  hath  raught  him." 

Death 
Soliloquies  over  the  dead  are  almost  a  mannerism  of  "  The 
Second  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth,"  where  they  occur  five  times, 

"Select  Specimens  of  the  Hindu  Drajua,  Vol.  II,  p.  loi. 


77 

thrice  as  an  accompaniment  for  bearing  off  the  corpse/  Owing 
to  the  absence  of  a  front  curtain  for  the  EHzabethan  stage, 
such  awkward  contrivances  for  disposing  of  the  slain  were 
necessary.  In  "The  Third  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth"  (II, 
5),  two  soHloquizers  drag  in  the  bodies  of  their  adversaries 
and  also  carry  them  out.  To  be  sure,  Shakespearean  apos- 
trophes to  the  dead  are  not  always  utilitarian  f  Mary  Antony's 
"O  pardon  me,  thou  bleeding  piece  of  earth"  (III,  i,  254- 
275)  is  primarily  histrionic;  Imogen's  lament  over  the  head- 
less trunk  (IV,  2,  295-332)  exists  for  the  sake  of  the  situation, 
while  the  Prince's  apostrophe  to  the  pseudo-dead  Falstaff 
(V,  4,  102-110)  accentuates  the  ludicrous  effect  of  the  monolog 
which  follows.  Ordinarily,  however,  such  laments  are  intended 
to  establish  beyond  a  doubt  the  fact  that  the  subject  of  the 
monolog  is  dead,  as  well  as  to  move  the  beholder  with  pity 
and  terror.  This  is  the  function  of  the  Prince's  soliloquy  over 
Hotspur  (V,  4,  87-101)  and  of  Charmian's  over  Cleopatra 
(V,  2,  316-322).  In  both  instances,  the  soliloquizer  com- 
pletes a  sentence  of  the  dying — a  trick  cleverly  burlesqued  in 
Sheridan's  "  Critic."" 

Soliloquies  of  the  dying  are  also  used  for  expository  pur- 
poses. In  "  The  Third  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth,"  Clifford's 
"Here  burns  my  candle  out;  ay,  here  it  dies"  (II,  6,  1-30) 
and  Warwick's  speech  (V,  2,  5-27)  in  which  he  asserts  that 
his  eyes  are  "  now  dimm'd  with  death's  black  veil," — these 
soliloquies  afford  ample  preparation  for  the  deaths  of  their 
speakers. 

Monologs  over  the  dead  and  of  the  dying  flourish  in  Eliza- 
bethan drama.  Both  are  found  in  a  somewhat  embryonic  con- 
dition in  the  Hegge  play  of  "  Noah  and  Lamech,"^**  where  the 
youth  slain  by  Lamech  states  clearly  in  four  lines  that  he  is 
expiring,  and  then  Lamech,  alone  with  the  corpse,  utters  his 

'  IV,  I,  144-147  ;  IV,  10,  82-90  ;  V,  2,  31-65. 

'  Indeed  such  soliloquies  may  be  regarded,  in  part  at  least,  as  a  survival  of 
the  ancient  custom  of  uttering  formal  laments  over  the  slain — for  example, 
Hrothgar's  lament  for  Aeschere  in  Beozvulf  (11.  1 321-1344)  and  Roland's  for 
Oliver  in  the  Chanson  de  Roland  (Stanza  CLIII). 

°  Dent  edition,  III,  i,  11.  227,  22,2, 

"  Manly,  Vol.  I,  p.  37- 


78 

contrition  briefly  but  poignantly.  The  early  soliloquies  are,  as 
a  rule,  painfully  expository.  The  dying  speech  of  Stukely  in 
Peek's  "Battle  of  Alcazar"  informs  the  audience,  addressed 
as  "  friends  and  lordings,"  of  his  entire  life  history,  and  con- 
cludes : 

"  Stukely,  the  story  of  thy  life  is  told : 
Here  breathe  thy  last,  and  bid  thy  friends  farewell."" 

The  last  words  of  Cambises  are  equally  confidential.  He  ex- 
plains to  the  audience  the  cause  of  his  death,  showing  them 
the  sword  which  "  ran  me  thus  into  the  side,  as  you  right  well 
may  see."^^    The  final  couplet, 

"  Thus  gasping  heer  on  ground  I  lye  ;  for  nothing  I  doo  care  ; 
A  just  reward  for  my  misdeeds  my  death  doth  plaine  declare," 

seems  sufficiently  explicit  as  to  stage  business,  without  the 
added  direction,  "  Heere  let  him  quake  and  stir."  The  speech 
by  Ambidexter  which  follows  is  in  the  nature  of  a  soliloquy 
over  the  dead,  furnishing  intelligence  as  to  the  moment  of 
decease : 

"  But  beholde,  now  with  Death  he  doth  strive. 
Alas,  good  king!  alas,  he  is  gone!" 

The  monolog  of  "  Ralph  with  a  forked  arrow  through  his 
head  "  in  "  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle  "  thus  parodies 
the  conclusion  of  such  turgid  death  soliloquies :  "  I  die !  fly, 
fly,  my  soul,  to  Grocer's  Hall  !"^^ 

Marlowe  retains  the  soliloquy  as  a  device  for  portraying 
death:  such  is  the  prayer  of  the  wounded  Sigismund  ("Tam- 
burlaine,"  Part  H,  H,  3)  and  such  the  lament  of  Theridimas 
before  removing  the  body  of  Olympia  (u.  s.,  IV,  3)  ;  but  the 
mad  ravings  of  Zabina  ("  Tamburlaine,"  Part  I,  V,  i)  and 
the  frenzied  apostrophes  of  Tamburlaine  (u.  s.,  H,  4)  trans- 
cend the  purely  functional  in  their  stress  on  the  emotional 
situation.  The  emotional  value  of  the  death  soliloquy  appeals 
strongly   to   the   closet   dramatist.      Thomas    Lovell    Beddoes 

"  Dramatic  Works,  edited  by  Bullen,  Vol.  I,  p.  290. 

"  Manly,  Vol.  I,  p.  208. 

^^  Dramatic  Works,  edited  by  Dyce,  Vol.  II,  p.  227. 


79 

revels  in  garish  apostrophes  to  corpses,^*  as  well  as  apostrophes 
to  the  abstract  conceptions  of  Death  and  Sleep.  Some  of  t?ie 
greatest  passages  in  Shakespeare  are  philosophizings  on  these 
themes,  but  they  do  not  concern  the  present  inquiry  into 
mechanism.  A  combination  of  sentiment  and  exposition,  the 
Shakespearean  death  soliloquy  is,  as  a  rule,  fundamentally  a 
part  of  the  machinery  of  the  plot. 

Suicide 

Even  more  evident  is  the  mechanical  aspect  of  the  suicide 
soliloquy,  which,  like  that  of  the  dying,  purposes  to  inform 
the  audience  that  the  meaning  of  the  speaker's  motions  is 
death.  A  character's  falling  on  his  sword  or  stabbing  himself 
are  movements  so  hurried  that  some  spectators  would  not 
comprehend  them  without  a  word  of  commentary.  Prelimi- 
nary apostrophes  to  the  fatal  weapon  are  not  uncommon. 
Aecius,  for  example,  in  the  "  V'alentinian "  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher,  kisses  his  sword  and  addresses  it  before  killing  him- 
self (IV,  4).  Shakespeare  often  contrives  to  give  the  neces- 
sary information  in  a  couplet : 

"  Caesar,  thou  art  reveng'd, 

Even  with  the  sword  that  killed  thee  "  (V,  3,  45-46)  ; 
"  Caesar,  now  be  still ; 

I  kill'd  not  thee  with  half  so  good  a  will "  (V,  5,  50-51)  ; 
"  I  kissed  thee  ere  I  killed  thee :  no  way  but  this. 

Killing  myself  to  die  upon  a  kiss  "  (V,  2,  258-359). 

These  brief  apostrophes  to  the  departed  have  their  own  mean- 
ing, but  they  exist  primarily  to  mark  the  passing  of  the  spirits 
of  Brutus,  Cassius  and  Othello.  Likewise,  the  soliloquy  of 
Titinius  ("Julius  Caesar,"  V,  3,  80-90)  announces  his  suicide 
with  his  final  words,  "  Come,  Cassius'  sword,  and  find  Titinius' 
heart."  The  suicide  usually  makes  two  points  in  his  monolog : 
first,  the  instrument  with  which  he  intends  to  kill  himself;  and 
second,  his  approaching  death.  Juliet's  soliloquy  (V,  3,  161- 
170)  performs  the  dual  function : 

"^  Works,  edited  by  Edmund  Gosse ;  Bride's  Tragedy,  Vol.  I,  p.   146,  and 
Death's  Jest  Book,  Vol.  II,  p.  121. 


80 

"  O  happy  dagger ! 
This  is  thy  sheath  (Stabs  herself)  ;  there  rust  and  let  me  die." 

As  stabbing  requires  verbal  elucidation,  so  the  mere  action 
of  drinking  from  a  cup  and  then  falling  prone  is  meaningless, 
unless  there  is  an  explanation  that  the  cup  contains  poison. 
Romeo's  long  soliloquy  over  the  body  of  Juliet  (V,  3,  74-120) 
explains  that  he  is  taking  the  poison :  "O  true  apothecary,  thy 
drugs  are  quick;"  and  then,  as  usual,  in  such  cases,  he  affirms 
his  death :  "  Thus  with  a  kiss  I  die."  Juliet's  elaborate  sohl- 
oquy  preparatory  to  drinking  the  potion  (IV,  3,  13-58),  though 
lacking  the  suicidal  intent,  has  something  of  the  frenzied  mood 
of  self-destruction  characteristic  of  the  soliloquizers  who 
poison  themselves.  An  early  analog  occurs  in  "  Gismond  of 
Salerne  "  (V,  2),  when  the  heroine,  lamenting  and  meditating 
revenge,  pours  a  vial  of  poison  into  the  cup  containing  her 
lover's  heart  and  partakes  of  the  beverage. 

The  suicide  soliloquy  has  classical  precedent,  since  it  is  used 
by  Sophocles  when  his  Ajax,  alone  on  the  seashore,  indulges 
in  fervid  apostrophe  and  falls  on  his  sword.  It  is  a  far  cry 
to  the  long,  fantastic  and  grandiose  suicide  soliloquy  of  Ajax 
at  the  conclusion  of  Heywood's  "Iron  Age"  (pr.  1632).  In- 
troduced with  a  pageant  crossing  the  stage,  interrupted  by 
Echo  responses,  illumined  by  such  expressions  as  "  Ha,  ha,  ha," 
"  f oh,  fob,"  "sink  the  Grecian  fleete  in  seas  of  Ajax  blood: 
so  ho,  so  ho,"  and  terminated  with  an  address  to  gods,  men, 
"  Furies,  enraged  Spirits,  Tortures  all," — this  was  surely  a 
part  to  tear  a  cat  in.  The  speech  marks  the  culmination  of 
the  bombast  and  violence  of  the  suicide  soliloquy  popular 
among  the  Elizabethans, — for  example,  the  monlog  during 
which  Isabella  of  "  The  Spanish  Tragedy "  cuts  down  the 
arbor  and  then  herself  (IV,  2),  and  those  during  which  Baja- 
zeth  and  his  wife  brain  themselves  ("  Tamburlaine,"  Part  I,  V, 
I ) .  Shakespeare  eliminates  the  grotesque  but  not  the  horrible : 
he  retains  sword,  dagger  and  poisoned  cup,  but  so  effectively 
does  he  manage  them  that  his  methods  have  become  laws  for 
practically  all  subsequent  suicide  soliloquies.  In  1887,  Mr. 
Pinero  made  use  of  the  vial  device  for  the  suicide^''  of  his  pro- 

''  When  the  happy  ending  was  substituted,  the  soliloquy  was  altered  from 
the  point  where  the  speaker  is  about  to  take  the  poison. 


81 

tagonist  in  "  The  Profligate."  During  the  long  monolog,  Ren- 
shaw  pours  the  poison  and  drinks  it.  Then,  according  to  the 
old  formula,  the  poison  is  named  for  the  audience :  "A  line 
to  Murray — telling  him — poison — morphine — message  " ;  and 
death  is  presaged  in  the  fragmentary  sentences  beginning  "  The 
light  is  out." 

Entrance,  Link  and  Exit  Speeches 
The  soliloquy  accompanying  the  dramatic  depiction  of  sui- 
cide, death,  sleep  and  stage  business  in  general,  is  primarily 
expository.  Not  necessarily  explanatory  of  the  action  are  the 
brief  soliloquies  accompanying  the  departure  of  a  character  or 
his  arrival  or  bridging  a  short  interval  between  an  exit  and  an 
entrance.  These  we  shall  term,  respectively,  exit  speeches,  en- 
trance speeches  and  links.  Freytag  speaks  of  monologs  as 
opening  an  act,  closing  it,  or  being  between  two  scenes  of  com- 
motion.^® The  monologs  we  are  about  to  examine  have  the 
special  function  of  opening,  joining  and  closing  episodes.  To 
be  sure,  it  is  evident  that  all  soliloquies,  by  virtue  of  their 
nature,  must  be  either  at  the  beginning  or  the  end  of  a  scene, 
or  between  two  conversations ;  but  the  entrance,  link  and  exit 
speeches  exist  because  of  their  location.  Usually  very  short, 
they  are  employed  to  give  ease  and  finish  to  a  scene ;  and,  para- 
doxical as  it  may  seem,  these  artificial  speeches  are  used  to 
avoid  the  appearance  of  artifice. 

The  Entrance  Soliloquy 
Thus  the  entrance  soliloquy  prevents  the  simultaneous  ap- 
pearance of  A  at  one  door  and  B  at  the  other.  Even  though 
they  were  meeting  by  appointment,  they  probably  would  not 
arrive  at  the  same  instant.  Consequently  A  comes  on  a  mo- 
ment before  B,  and  fills  the  interval  with  some  remark — very 
likely  stating  what  the  appointment  is.  So  Eglamour  in  "  The 
Two  Gentlemen  "  observes, 

"  This  is  the  hour  that  Madam  Silvia 
Entreated  me  to  call  and  know  her  mind"  (IV,  3,  1-2). 

"  Technique  of  the  Drama,  translated  by  Elias  MacEwan,  p.  219. 
7 


82 
Again  at  the  opening  of  the  fifth  act,  he  announces, 

"  And  now  it  is  about  the  very  hour 
That  Silvia,  at  Friar  Patrick's  cell,  should  meet  me." 

In  each  case,  the  lady  appears  forthwith.  Shakespeare  soon 
abandons  the  obvious  contrivance  of  meeting  by  appointment, 
but  his  entrance  soHloquies  generally,  in  some  way,  prepare 
for  the  ensuing  scene.  For  example,  Oberon  wonders  what 
has  happened  to  his  queen  (III,  2,  1-3),  whereupon  Puck 
enters  and  informs  him. 

"  Romeo  and  Juliet "  affords  the  best  illustrations  of  the  en- 
trance soliloquy  purely  as  such,  without  any  ulterior  purpose. 
Romeo's 

"  Can  I  go  forward  when  my  heart  is  here  ? 
Turn  back,  dull  earth,  and  find  thy  center  out "  (II,  i,  1-2) 

marks  both  his  appearance  and  his  disappearance,  and  like  the 
famous  line  with  which  he  enters  the  orchard  (II,  i,  i),  it  has 
no  connection  with  the  ensuing  scene.  So  Friar  Laurence's 
muttering, 

"  Saint  Francis  be  my  speed !  how  oft  tonight 
Have  my  old  feet  stumbled  at  graves!  "  (V,  3,  121-122) 

merely  indicates  his  presence  in  the  tomb.  Such  speeches  are 
pleasing  interludes  between  the  stirring  episodes  of  the  drama. 
Shakespeare  is  also  fond  of  the  entrance  soliloquy  for  facili- 
tating his  battle  scenes.  Rest  from  the  heat  of  the  fight  is 
the  theme  of  the  entrance  speeches  in  "  Troilus  and  Cressida  " 
(V,  8,  1-4)  and  "  The  Third  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth  "  (II,  3, 
1-5).  "Rest,  sword,  thou  hast  thy  fill  of  blood  and  death," 
says  Hector ;  and  Warwick  asserts,  "  Spite  of  spite,  needs  must 
I  rest  awhile."  Macbeth's  despondent  preludes  to  his  encoun- 
ters with  young  Siward  and  with  Macduff  (V,  7,  1-4;  V,  8, 
1-3)  add  excitement  to  the  mood  of  the  battle,  but  their  im- 
portant dramaturgic  function  is  to  oft'er  an  excuse  for  the 
arrival  of  Macbeth  before  that  of  his  opponent.  If  Macbeth 
and  Siward  or  Macbeth  and  Macduff  were  to  enter  simulta- 
neously, meet  and  proceed  to  fight,  the  manipulation  would  be 
palpable.  As  it  is,  the  entrance  soliloquies  permit  an  appear- 
ance of  naturalism  in  the  encounter. 


83 

The  entrance  speech  has  been  a  popular  contrivance  from 
ancient  to  recent  times.  Sanskrit  drama  furnishes  numerous 
instances.  Five  acts  of  "  The  Toy-Cart "  open  with  a  httle 
monolog  spoken  by  a  servant.^'  Entrance  sohloquies  have 
proved  especially  serviceable  in  comedy :  the  "  Lysistrata  "  of 
Aristophanes,  and  the  fourth  act  of  the  "Mercator"  of  Plautus 
open  with  the  device,  and  Moliere  employs  it  frequently. 
English  comedy  has  made  use  of  the  entrance  speech  from  the 
time  of  "Gammer  Gurton's  Needle  "^^  (pr.  1575)  to  that  of 
Pinero's  "Cabinet  Minister"  (1890).  The  entrance  soliloquy 
opening  the  Pinero  farce  constitutes  what  is  known  in  theatrical 
parlance  as  "  patter  talk,"  since  it  has  no  relation  to  the  plot 
and  accordingly  may  be  missed  by  the  spectators  while  seating 
themselves.  In  this  respect,  the  brief  initial  entrance  speech 
differs  from  the  more  elaborate  initial  exposition  monolog 
which  is  necessary  for  an  understanding  of  the  plot.  Romantic 
as  well  as  comic  dramas  afford  many  examples  of  the  entrance 
soliloquy.  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  abound  in  entrance,  link 
and  exit  speeches,  and  so  do  the  pieces  of  the  romantic  revival 
of  the  early  nineteenth  century.  In  Thomas  Dibdin's  stage 
adaptation  of  Scott's  "  Heart  of  Midlothian,"  there  are  four 
entrance  monologs  which  are  used  to  prepare  entrances. ^^  The 
prepared  entrance  often  concludes  the  link  as  well  as  the  en- 
trance soliloquy.  It  is  the  sole  office  of  Falstaff's  link  in  "  The 
Merry  Wives"  (III,  5,  58-60). 

The  Link 
The  link,  we  have  observed,  serves  to  join  episodes.     This, 
according  to  Cailhava  in  his  treatise  "  De  I'Art  de  la  Comedie  " 
(1772),-°  is  a  prime  requisite,  without  which  the  monolog  is 

"  U.  s.,  pp.  42,  59,  T2,  105,  143. 

'«  Manly,  Vol.  II,  p.  119. 

^^Cumberland's  Plays,  No.  3,  pp.  9,  17,  31,  22. 

^Edition  of  1786,  Vol.  I,  p.  225.  Also,  edition  of  1772,  Vol.  I,  p.  257: 
"  II  faut  necessairement  preparer  et  amener  d'un  peu  loin  un  autre  person- 
nage,  qui,  a  I'aide  d'un  monologue,  mette  une  distance  vraisemblable  entre 
les  personnes  qui  ne  doivent  pas  se  trouver  ensemble."  Sonnenfels,  Gottsched, 
Boileau  and  Voltaire  had  equally  clear  conceptions  of  the  function  of  the 
link :  see  Frierich  Diisel's  Der  dramatische  Monolog  in  der  Poetik  des  17.  tind 


84 

defective.  All  soliloquies,  it  is  true,  unless  they  open  or  close 
an  act,  perform  the  function  of  joining  in  a  general  way,  but 
the  link,  in  the  restricted  sense  in  which  we  use  the  term,  has 
that  special  object.  It  is  a  short  monolog  filling  the  interval 
between  an  exit  and  an  entrance,  a  factor  of  the  structure, 
rather  than  of  the  plot.  In  other  words,  no  matter  how  illu- 
minating a  remark  it  may  be,  it  is  fundamentally  a  mechanical 
contrivance  for  bridging  a  gap  in  the  action.  As  the  entrance 
soliloquy  is  a  graceful  subterfuge  for  preventing  the  simulta- 
neous appearance  of  A  and  B,  so  the  link  relieves  the  neces- 
sity of  having  A  enter  the  moment  that  B  leaves  the  stage. 

Frequently  the  link  is  only  a  line  or  two  in  length,  some- 
times merely  an  interjection  between  an  exit  and  an  entrance. 
The  shortest  soliloquies  on  record,  the  "Ah  "  in  "  Tartuffe  "-^ 
and  the  "  Hm  "  in  "  The  Pillars  of  Society,"--  are  links.  Both 
are  expressions  of  emotion  occurring  between  an  exit  and  an 
entrance,  when  the  speaker  is  alone.  Such  is  King  John's 
exclamation,  "My  mother  dead!"  (IV,  2,  181).-^  Henry  the 
Fifth's  "  God-a-mercy,  old  heart!  thou  speak'st  cheerfully" 
(IV,  I,  34),  as  Erpingham  leaves  him,  illustrates  a  form  of  the 
soliloquy  not  uncommon  in  the  link,  the  apostrophe  to  the  just 
departed.-* 

Falstaff  uses  the  address  to  the  departed  in  a  link  evidently 
intended  to  produce  a  broadly  comic  efifect  ("  Henry  IV,  Part 

II,  I,  2,  255-260).  The  comic  link  is  a  variety  Shakespeare 
frequently  employs.-^  Sometimes  the  interlude  between  an 
exit  and  an  entrance  assumes  the  form  of  a  little  poem.     Such 

18.  Jahrhunderts,  Hamburg,  1897,  pp.  16,  17.  It  is  curious  that  the  type  has 
been  neglected  by  English  critics.  Diisel  notes  Lessing's  use  of  the  "  Pausen- 
fiillmonolog  "  and  the  "  Verbindungsmonolog,"  pp.  22-25,  42- 

-'  "  Grands  ficrivains  "  edition,  IV,  i,  1.  1268. 

■■  Prose  Dramas,  translation  edited  by  Wm.  Archer,  p.  210. 

-'  Cf.  Taming  of  the  Shrew,  II,  i,  37-38,  V,  i,  7  ;  Julius  Caesar,  III,  2,  265- 
266  ;  All's  Well,  II,  3,  282-283  ;  As  You  Like  It,  I,  2,  269-270  ;  Othello,  III, 
I,  42-43  ;  Lear,  III,  6,  4-5. 

=' Cf .  Henry  the  Fifth,  IV,   i,  63;  As  You  Like  It,  I,  i,  90-92;  Othello, 

III,  3,  90-92. 

"^  Merry  Wives,  II,  2,  143-149,  156-159,  V,  5,  38-40  ;  Measure  for  Measure, 
I,  2,  83-85. 


85 

are  the  jingling  quatrains  of  Robin  Good  fellow, ^^^  and  the  sen- 
tentious quatrain  of  the  Queen  in  "Hamlet"  (IV,  5,  16-20). 
The  exquisitely  lyrical  addresses  of  Brutus  to  his  sleeping  page 
(II,  I,  229-233;  IV,  3,  267-274)  have  a  utilitarian  as  well  as 
an  aesthetic  significance.  In  one  case,  the  speech  separates  the 
departure  of  the  conspirators  from  the  entrance  of  Portia:  if 
she  came  in  immediately,  it  would  almost  appear  that  she  had 
been  listening,  and,  at  any  rate,  the  machinery  would  creak. 
Again,  if  the  soliloquy  before  the  apparition  of  the  ghost  were 
omitted,  there  would  be  a  notable  bss  of  "  atmospheric  "  efifect. 
Thus  the  Shakespearean  link,  whether  interjection  or  brief 
remark,  or  comical  or  musical  interlude,  is  deftly  fitted  into 
the  structure  of  the  play. 

The  choral  comment  of  Greek  drama  performs  the  function 
of  the  link.  Despite  the  presence  of  the  chorus,  however,  there 
are  one  or  two  instances  of  the  device  in  Aristophanes.^^  In 
"  The  Clouds,"  Strepsiades  is  assigned  a  link  before  knocking 
at  a  door,  a  contrivance  often  employed  by  Moliere,^*  and 
doubtless  by  the  commedia  del  arte.  Although  unobtrusive, 
the  link  is  the  typical  soliloquy  in  Moliere;  for  example,  the 
casual  reader  or  spectator  would  say  that  "  Le  Mariage  Force  " 
has  not  one  soliloquy,  but  a  careful  study  shows  that  it  con- 
tains seven  links,  all  spoken  by  Sganarelle,  who  is  on  the  stage 
during  the  entire  action.  Links  are  used  frequently  in  Sanskrit 
drama,  and  in  the  plays  of  all  modern  nations.  Indeed,  this 
kind  of  soliloquy  seems  to  have  increased  in  popularity  with 
the  passage  of  time.  When  Robert  Wilmot  recast  his  "  Gis- 
mond  of  Salerne "  (1568)  as  "  Tancred  and  Gismunda" 
(1591),  he  added  a  link  to  give  plausibility  to  the  movement.^* 
Shakespeare's  predecessors  did  not  use  the  link  so  often  as  he 
did,  nor  he  so  often  as  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  Even  Ibsen, 
who  is  credited  with  having  abandoned  the  soliloquy,  puts  five 

^  A  Midsummer-Night's  Dream,  III,  2,  396-399,  437-440. 

^Translation  of  Wm.  J.  Hickie,  Vol.  I,  The  Acharnians,  p.  10;  The 
Clouds,  p.  122. 

^  For  example,  the  soliloquies  of  Sganarelle  in  L'£cole  des  Maris,  II,  2 ; 
11,4;  II,  7;  III,  3. 

="  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  VII,  p.  45. 


86 

links  in  one  play,  "The  Pillars  of  Society "^<'  (1877).  True, 
these  are  chiefly  ejaculations,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that 
Shakespeare  has  some  of  the  same  type.  As  late  as  "  Michael 
and  His  Lost  Angel"  (1896)  by  Mr.  Henry  Arthur  Jones,  the 
link  has  its  vogue,^^  and,  in  fact,  it  still  survives. ^^ 

The  link  often  indicates  a  passage  of  time.  This  occurs 
when  A  has  to  leave  the  scene,  perform  some  errand,  and 
return.  Stage  time  is  invariably  less  than  actual  time,  and, 
accordingly,  a  few  words  of  solioquy  by  B  will  give  the  effect 
of  a  sufficient  interval  elapsing  before  the  reappearance  of  A. 
So  the  Second  Murderer  in  "  Richard  the  Third  "  speaks  three 
lines  (I,  4,  279-281)  during  which  the  First  Murderer  drags 
off  the  body,  disposes  of  it  and  comes  back.  A  link  of  the 
same  length  is  twice  assigned  to  Romeo  (H,  2,  139-141,  156- 
158),  while  Juliet  goes  to  answer  the  summons  of  the  Nurse 
and  returns.  An  exactly  parallel  service  is  performed  by  the 
link  of  Anasuya  in  the  "  Sakuntala  "of  Kalidasa,^^  and  simi- 
lar offices  are  effected  by  links  in  Plautus^*  and  Terence.^'' 
The  "  Damon  and  Pythias  "  (1564  c.)  of  Richard  Edwards  has 
two  links,^*'  closely  following  the  Roman  model.  Moliere's 
"  fitourdi  "  contains  a  conspicuous  illustration  of  the  soliloquy's 
indicating  the  passage  of  time,  for,  during  Lelie's  brief  monolog 
(H,  I,  489-497),  Mascarille  spreads  broadcast  the  news  of 
the  death  of  Lelie's  father. 

Shakespeare  is  fond  of  a  slightly  different  form  of  the  time 
link, — namely,  that  which  bridges  the  gap  while  B  is  summon- 
ing C  to  the  presence  of  A.     For  example : 

"  Horatio.     Let  them  come  in.     (Exit  Attendant.) 
I  do  not  know  from  what  part  of  the  world 
I  should  be  greeted,  if  not  from  Lord  Hamlet." 
(Enter  Sailor.)      (IV,  6,  3-5.) 

'"  U.  s.,  pp.  196,  210,  215,  228,  240. 

"  Macmillan  edition,  p.  85. 

^^  For  example,  in  Act  H  of  M.  Bernstein's  The  Thief. 

''  Translation  by  Monier  Williams,  p.  79. 

'*  Translation  by  H.  Riley,  Vol.  I,  Miles  Gloriosus,  p.  93  ;  Bacchides,  p.  190. 

'' Translation  by  H.  Riley,  Heantontimormncnos,  p.   162. 

'"  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  IX,  pp.  36,  43. 


87 

Even  shorter  is  the  Hnk  of  the  King  in  "All's  Well."  "  Thus 
he  his  special  nothing  ever  prologues,"  he  observes,  as  Lafeu 
goes  out  and  returns,  ushering  in  Helena  (II,  i,  95).  It  is 
interesting  to  find  at  the  opening  of  Mr.  Pinero's  "  Profligate  " 
a  link  of  precisely  the  same  length  and  purpose,  Hugh  Murray 
speaking  a  sentence  while  his  servant  goes  out  and  ushers  in 
Lord  Dangars.  The  contrivance  is  twice  employed  in  "  Othello  "  '^ 
(ly,  2,  20-23,  107-109),  and  a  well  known  passage  in  "Mac- 
beth" accomplishes  a  similar  object.  Lady  Macbeth,  after 
dispatching  a  servant  to  find  her  lord,  soliloquizes, 

"  Nought's  had,  all's  spent, 
Where  our  desire  is  got  without  content. 
'Tis  safer  to  be  that  which  we  destroy 
Than  by  destruction  dwell  in  doubtful  joy  "  (III,  2,  4-7) — ■ 

whereupon  Macbeth  enters.  This  is  the  fourth  Shakespearean 
link  we  have  noted  in  the  form  of  a  quatrain.  The  rimes  sug- 
gest the  ornamental  nature  of  the  monologic  interlude,  but 
there  are  not  enough  illustrations  to  show  that  Shakespeare, 
like  his  contemporary.  Lope  de  Vega,  consciously  makes  a 
metrical  distinction  between  soliloquy  and  dialog.  In  Lope's 
essay,  "  El  Arte  nuevo  de  hazar  Comedias  en  este  Tiempo,"  he 
states  that  the  sonnet  is  an  appropriate  form  for  the  soliloquy, 
and  he  often  puts  his  theory  into  practice. 

The  Exit  Soliloquy 
There  are  four  instances  in  Shakespeare  of  quatrains,  con- 
sisting of  two  couplets  each,  appearing  as  exit  speeches.^^ 
Often  the  episode  of  the  Elizabethan  drama  is  terminated  with 
a  couplet — or,  sometimes,  a  pair  of  couplets — and  frequently 
the  scene  ends  in  monolog;  hence  the  coincidence.  The  func- 
tion of  the  monologic  conclusion  is  similar  to  that  of  the  mono- 
logic  opening.  There  was  no  drop  curtain  in  the  Elizabethan 
theater,  we  must  remember,  making  possible  the  tableaux  with 
which  a  modern  act  may  begin  or  end,  and,  accordingly,  all  of 
the  characters  have  to  go  off  as  well  as  come  on.     To  have 

^Richard  III.  IV,  2,   123-126;  Romeo  and  Juliet,  II,  2,  187-190;  Merry 
Wives,  IV,  2,  106-109  ;  Twelfth  Night,  I,  5,  327-330. 


many  depart  at  once  is  awkward,  and  so,  for  the  sake  of  va- 
riety, one  person  is  of  ten  left  to  say  a  few  words  before  leaving 
the  stage.  Even  to  have  two  people  depart  together  is  a  more 
difficult  feat  than  to  have  them  enter,  inasmuch  as  the  exits  are 
at  the  rear  of  the  stage,  and  the  actors  should  not  say  their  final 
words  with  their  backs  to  the  audience.  It  therefore  frequently 
occurs  that  when  A  and  B  are  conversing,  A  leaves  a  moment 
before  B,  and  the  latter  has  a  brief  soliloquy,  generally  ending 
in  a  rime,  while  he  is  getting  off  the  stage.  The  exit  speech, 
then,  like  the  link  and  the  entrance  soliloquy,  serves  a  mechan- 
ical purpose :  it  facilitates  the  departure  of  the  last  speaker  in 
a  scene.  The  rime  tag  is  spoken,  presumably,  when  the  actor 
is  at  the  exit  door,  and  while  he  is  facing  the  audience. 

Very  often  Shakespeare's  exit  soliloquy  consists  merely  of 
a  couplet.^^  As  we  have  noted,  he  sometimes  employs  two 
couplets,  and  sometimes  three,  four,  five,  or  six  verses,  conclud- 
ing with  a  tag.  Occasionally  prose  is  used,  and  there  are  rare 
instances  of  a  line  or  less  serving  as  an  exit  speech.  The  son 
carries  off  his  father's  body  with  a  single  explanatory  verse  in 
"The  Third  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth"  (II,  5,  113)  ;  Hermia 
departs  with  one  line  in  "A  Midsummer-Night's  Dream"  (III, 
2,  344),  while  Menenius  in  "  Coriolanus "  goes  off  with  the 
ejaculation,  "fie,  fie,  fie!"  (IV,  2,  54).  This  utterance  is  truly 
a  soliloquy,  comparable  as  to  length  with  the  exclamatory  links 
of  Moliere  and  Ibsen. 

Like  the  link,  the  exit  speech  may  assume  the  guise  of  the 
apostrophe  to  the  just  departed, — for  example,  Jessica's  ad- 
dress to  the  retreating  figure  of  her  parent : 

"  Farewell,  and  if  my  fortune  be  not  cross'd, 
I  have  a  father,  you  a  daughter  lost"  (II,  5,  sfi-S?)-"' 

Further,  the  exit  soliloquy  is  similar  to  the  link  and  the 
entrance  speech  in  that  it  may  consist  of  a  bit  of  moralizing, 

^  Henry  VI,  Part  II,  V,  2,  29-30;  Two  Gentlemen,  V,  2,  55-56;  Merchant 
of  Venice,  II,  5,  56-57  ;  Henry  IV,  Part  I,  III,  3,  229-230 ;  Hamlet,  III,  3, 
97-98;  Othello,  V,  I,  128-129;  Macbeth,  III,  2,  141-142;  Pericles,  I,  i, 
170-171. 

^°Cf.  Richard  III,  I,  4,  286-290;  Romeo  and  Juliet,  II,  2,  187-190;  III,  5, 
235-242  ;  Troilus  and  Cressida,  III,  3,  313-316. 


89 

a  brief  comment  on  the  plot,  or  an  expression  of  love  or  the 
like;  but,  also  like  the  allied  monologs,  it  never  conveys  new 
information.  Its  purpose  is  not  to  narrate  the  story,  but  to  con- 
clude the  episode. 

Sometimes  the  conclusion  is  brought  about  in  a  comical 
fashion,  by  what  is  known  in  the  vernacular  of  the  modern 
stage  as  the  "  gag."  Shakespeare  is  not  above  this  appeal  to  the 
groundlings, — witness  the  churlish  invective  of  Thersites 
("Troilus  and  Cressida,"  III,  3,  313-316),  Falstaff's  giving 
vent  to  his  exuberant  spirits  ("  The  First  Part  of  Henry  the 
Fourth,"  III,  3,  229-230),  Mistress  Page's  jovial  pondering  on 
an  old  saw  ("Merry  Wives,"  IV,  2,  106-109),  and  Cloten's 
indignant  iteration  of  the  phrase  which  chafes  his  vanity 
("  Cymbeline,"  II,  3,  161).  The  doggerel  couplet  terminating 
the  first  act  of  "  Lear  "  is  an  indecent  "  gag,"  so  inappropriate 
that  it  seems  spurious. ^^'^ 

In  connection  with  the  exit  speech,  it  is  an  interesting  fact 
that  all  of  the  eleven  soliloquies  in  "  The  First  Part  of  Henry 
the  Sixth  "  are  followed  by  an  exit,  and  that,  although  occa- 
sionally expanded  into  a  sort  of  choral  comment,  narrative, 
prophetic  or  premonitory,  they  usually  perform  the  function  of 
the  exit  speech.  The  piece  is  unusual  in  that  it  ends  with  an 
exit  soliloquy,  not  without  precedent,  however,  as  the 
"  Bacchides "  of  Plautus  has  such  a  conclusion. 

Plautus  and  Terence  many  times  have  a  soliloquy  followed 
by  an  exit,  but  it  is  generally  narrative  in  content.  The  Hindu 
dramatists  employ  it  in  the  true  Elizabethan  fashion.  Early  it 
creeps  into  English  drama,  and  Shakespeare's  predecessors 
establish  it  as  a  convention,  and  his  successors  avail  themselves 
of  it  as  often  as  he  does.  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  have  an 
especial  fondness  for  exit  speeches  long  and  short,  rimed  and 
unrimed.  With  the  appearance  of  the  drop  curtain,  exit 
speeches  diminish  in  number,  but  the  convention  persists,  in 
isolated  instances,  through  the  nineteenth  century.    Act  III  of 

''"  For  the  excellent  reasons  given  by  A.  C.  Bradley,  in  his  Shakespearean 
Tragedy,  pp.  450-452,  Professor  Bradley  makes  some  interesting  observa- 
tions on  the  comparative  number  of  soliloquies  followed  by  exits  in  the 
tragedies. 


90 

Sheil's  "Evadne"  (1821)  terminates  with  an  exit  speech  of 
two  Hnes,  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  it  is  founded  on  Shir- 
ley's "Traitor"  (1631),  which  contains  several  exit  couplets. 
Likewise  the  fourth  act  of  Miss  Mitford's  "  Rienzi "  (1828) 
and  the  first  act  of  her  "  Otto  of  Wittelsbach  "  end  with  exit 
speeches  of  two  lines  each.  Not  as  a  medieval  survival,  but  as 
a  modern  stage  contrivance,  Ibsen  projects  the  little  soliloquies 
which  conclude  the  first  and  last  acts  of  "  A  Doll's  House  " 
(1879).  These  monologs  are  not  accompanied  by  exits,  but 
they  are  virtually  exit  speeches,  since  it  is  their  function  to  give 
an  artistic  finish  to  the  scene. 

THE   OVERHEARD   SOLILOQUY 

The  overheard  soliloquy,  with  its  strange  complexities  and 
inconsistencies,  is  an  important  type  of  the  monologic  accom- 
paniment of  action.  The  connection  between  eavesdropping 
and  movement  is  not  evident  until  one  remembers  that  the  actor 
overhearing  a  soliloquy  invariably  indulges  in  pantomimical  by- 
play, and  further,  that  the  overheard  soliloquy  involves  one  or 
more  entrances.  Thus  it  is  allied  with  the  monolog  accompany- 
ing stage  business  and  with  the  entrance,  link  and  exit  speech. 
Indeed,  there  is  a  variety  of  soliloquy  which  we  shall  style  the 
"  unconscious  entrance  "  so  intimately  associated  with  the  over- 
heard soliloquy  that  it  seems  best  to  treat  it  in  this  connection. 

The  only  similarity  between  the  unconscious  entrance  and 
the  entrance  soliloquy  is  that  both  are  spoken  as  soon  as  the 
soliloquizers  enter.  The  unconscious  entrance  soliloquy  is  so 
called,  because  its  speaker  is  unconscious  of  the  person  or  per- 
sons already  on  the  stage.  The  verisimilitude  of  the  situation 
is  no  more  to  be  questioned  than  that  of  the  convention 
which  placed  two  opposing  camps  on  the  same  Elizabethan 
stage. 

The  soliloquizer  who  enters  oblivious  to  the  presence  of 
others  may  or  may  not  be  overheard,  but,  for  convenience  of 
classification,  let  us  confine  the  term  to  the  monologs  which  are 
not  overheard.  An  illustration  is  afforded  by  "  The  Third  Part 
of  Henry  the  Sixth,"  when  Edward  runs  in,  with  a  despairing 
cry,  apparently  oblivious  of  Warwick,  who,  as  evidenced  by  his 


91 

next  speech,  is  unconscious  of  Edward's  soliloquy  (II,  3,  6-8). 
In  "  The  Second  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth,"  Iden  ruminates  in 
his  garden  (IV,  10,  18-25),  not  noticing  Cade,  whose  apart 
shows  no  indication  that  he  overhears  the  soliloquy. 

The  unconscious  entrance  has  an  ancient  lineage.  Polynices 
in  "  The  Phoenician  Women  "  of  Euripides  considers  himself 
alone  when  he  says,  "What  ho !  who  goes  there  ?  or  is  it  an  idle 
sound  I  fear?  .  .  .  Well,  there  is  help  at  hand,  for  the  altar's 
hearth  is  close  and  there  are  people  in  the  palace."^"  Not  until 
his  next  remark  does  he  observe  the  chorus :  "  Come,  let  me 
sheathe  my  sword  in  its  dark  scabbard  and  ask  these  maidens 
standing  near  the  house,  who  they  are."  The  unconscious 
entrance  is  a  favorite  contrivance  in  Roman  comedy,*^  and  in 
the  old  Hindu  drama.*-  Moliere's  soliloquizers  often  fail  to 
notice  others  on  the  stage.  In  "  Melicerte,"  little  Myrtil  comes 
in  talking  to  a  sparrow  in  its  cage,  but  the  method  is  not 
always  so  naturalistic.  Martine  of  "  Le  Medecin  Malgre  Lui  " 
vehemently  chatters  to  herself  (I,  3)  until  she  bumps  into  two 
men, — producing  the  desired  laugh.  Again,  while  Sganarelle's 
wife  is  soliloquizing  ("  Sganarelle,"  I,  5),  he  enters  with  a  two- 
line  monolog  which  he  delivers  before  he  sees  her.  She  con- 
tinues her  soliloquy,  unconscious  of  him,  although  he  interrupts 
with  three  aparts. 

Such  complexities  do  not  occur  on  the  English  stage,  where, 
oftentimes  the  convention  is  ludicrously  simple.  Preston 
emphasizes  its  absurdity  when  he  has  Cambises  ask,  "  Is  there 
nought  to  be  my  help?"*^  with  Ambidexter  only  a  step  away. 
From  the  time  of  the  "  Second  Shepherds'  Play  "**  and  "  Gam- 
mer Gurton's  Needle  "*^  to  that  of  "  The  Good  Natured 
Man  "*^   and   "  She    Stoops   to   Conquer,"*'^   the    unconscious 

*^  Plays,  translated  by  E.  P.  Coleridge,  Vol.  II,  p.  226. 

**  Plautus,  Vol.  I,  pp.  178,  189,  304,  382,  556;  Vol.  II,  p.  169.  Terence, 
pp.  46,  49. 

*- Select  Specimens  of  the  Hindu  Drama,  Vol.  I,  pp.  67,  91,  207;  Vol.  II, 
pp.  20,  193,  293. 

«  Manly,  Vol.  II,  p.  208. 

"  Manly,  Vol.  I,  pp.  96,  98. 

*=  Manly,  Vol.  II,  p.  119. 

*'"  Belles  Lettres  "  edition,  pp.  64,  99,  108. 

*'  Same  volume,  pp.  179,  207,  215,  226. 


92 

entrance  has  been  most  serviceable  in  English  comedy,  although 
it  has  been  used  in  all  forms  of  drama.  Whetstone's  Cassandra 
concludes  her  unconscious  entrance  sohloquy  by  discovering 
Promos  in  this  naive  fashion :  "  See,  as  I  wished.  Lord  Promos 
is  in  place  !"*^  As  in  this  case,  the  device  usually  follows  the 
order  we  have  observed  in  Euripides,  a  sequence  firmly  estab- 
lished by  Plautus :  first,  soliloquy ;  second,  an  apart  in  which 
the  other  person  or  persons  are  discovered ;  and  third,  direct 
address.  Numerous  contrivances  of  this  sort,  with  slight  varia- 
tions, survive  in  the  early  nineteenth  century.^^ 

Taking  advantage  of  the  fact  that  the  unconscious  entrance 
soliloquy  is  best  suited  for  comic  effects,  Shakespeare  casts  the 
discourse  of  Autolycus  on  his  profession  in  this  mold  ("  Winter's 
Tale,"  IV,  4,  605-630).  The  bystanders  are  quite  as  oblivious 
to  him  as  he  to  them,  but,  when  he  discovers  them,  he  exclaims, 
"  If  they  have  overheard  me  now,  why,  hanging."  This 
admission  of  the  possibility  of  being  overheard  is  interesting, 
and  perhaps  it  explains  the  parenthesis  of  the  soliloquizing 
Angelo,  "  Let  no  man  hear  me"  ("  Measure  for  Measure,"  II, 
4,  10), — a  remark  which  Dr.  Kilian'^°  points  out  contends  with 
our  conception  of  the  soliloquy.  For  the  present,  however,  let 
us  not  attempt  to  rationalize  the  overheard  soliloquy,  since  our 
immediate  object  is  merely  to  examine  it  as  it  occurs. 

Sometimes  a  series  of  soliloquies  is  overheard  by  one  char- 
acter and  not  by  others.  This  arrangement  is  used  in  "  The 
Third  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth"  (II,  5),  when  the  son  mourns 
over  the  corpse  of  his  father  and  the  father  over  the  corpse  of 
his  son,  each  soliloquizer  unconscious  of  the  other  but  both 
overheard  by  King  Henry.  The  device  is  pushed  to  the  utmost 
extravagance  when  the  soliloquies  of  father  and  son  and  the 
aparts  of  the  king  are  interlarded,  in  parallel  phraseology, 
thus : 

"  Son.     Was  ever  son  so  ru'd  a  father's  death  ? 
Father.    Was  ever  father  so  bemoan'd  his  son  ? 
King  Henry.     Was  ever  king  so  griev'd  for  subjects'  woe?" 

^  Six  Old  Plays,  p.  27. 

"For  example,  John  O'Keefe's  Wild  Oats  (1791),  in  Mrs.  Inchbald's  col- 
lection. Vol.  II,  p.  76;  and  the  Alfonso  (1802)  of  M.  G.  Lewis,  published  by 
J.  Bell,  p.  2. 

°°  U.  s.,  p.  XXX. 


93 

Doubtless  the  fact  that  son  and  father  consider  themselves 
alone  was  supposed  to  add  to  the  tragic  irony. 

A  variant  of  the  same  device  is  used  for  comic  effect  in 
"Love's  Labors  Lost"  (IV,  3).  There,  when  all  the  sohlo- 
quizers  have  arrived,  Dumain  is  unconscious  of  the  presence  of 
his  hidden  comrades,  Longaville  conscious  only  of  Dumain,  the 
king  conscious  of  the  other  two,  and  Biron  alone,  the  first  on 
the  stage,  comprehends  the  whimsical  situation,  that  they  are 
"  four  woodcocks  in  a  dish."  A  similar  scheme,  but  not  so 
elaborated,  occurs  in  "  Fair  Em  "  (pr.  before  1619),  there  being 
three  soliloquizing  lovers  two  of  whom  are  successively  over- 
heard." 

Shakespeare  employs  the  overheard  soliloquy  of  an  indi- 
vidual, as  well  as  of  a  group,  for  comic  purposes,  Malvolio's 
rumination  on  his  rimed  missive  (II,  5),  like  the  ponderings  of 
the  love-sick  swains  on  their  sonnets  in  "  Love's  Labors  Lost," 
is  audible  to  everybody  on  the  stage.  Indeed,  it  is  because 
Malvolio  is  overheard  that  the  scene  is  one  of  the  most  laugh- 
able in  Shakespearean  comedy.  By  this  means,  Malvolio  is 
shown  to  nibble  and  eventually  to  swallow  the  bait,  to  the  up- 
roarious delight  of  the  eavesdroppers,  whose  hilarity,  evi- 
denced in  conspicuous  by-play,  as  well  as  asides,  is  quickly 
communicated  to  the  audience.  The  same  contrivance  is  em- 
ployed in  "  All's  Well,"  when  Parolles  lays  bare  his  fears  to  the 
immense  satisfaction  of  the  listening  conspirators,  who  inter- 
rupt with  ironic  rejoinders  by  way  of  asides  and  finally  termi- 
nate his  meditations  by  seizing  and  blindfolding  him  (IV,  2, 
27-70).  The  device  makes  possible  a  comic  situation  of  an 
entirely  different  nature  in  "  The  First  Part  of  Henry  the 
Fourth,"  when  the  elegy  pronounced  by  Prince  Hal  over  the 
supposedly  dead  Falstaff  is  overheard  by  that  worthy  (V,  4, 
102-110).  Unless  the  actor  impersonating  Falstaff  should 
take  the  liberty  of  indulging  in  a  surreptitious  grimace,  the 
fun  is  not  apparent  during  the  prince's  speech,  but  it  explodes 
in  the  first  word  of  the  ensuing  monolog  by  Falstaff:  "  Em- 
bowell'd !" 

The  soliloquizer  who  is  overheard  may  be  the  center  of  a 

"  Simpson's  School  of  Shakespeare,  Vol.  II,  p.  418  ff. 


94 

tragic  as  well  as  of  a  comic  situation.  The  king's  monologic 
account  of  himself  in  "The  Third  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth" 
(III,  i)  discloses  his  identity  to  the  lurking  keepers,  who 
seize  him  a  prisoner ;  and  a  sentry  and  his  company  stealthily 
listen  to  the  dying  words  of  Enobarbus  ("Antony  and  Cleo- 
patra," IV,  9).  In  Dryden's  adaptation  of  the  tragedy,  "All 
for  Love,"  he  omits  this  overheard  soHloquy,  but  he  inserts  two 
equally  prominent  ones  of  his  own.^- 

The  romantic  situation,  like  the  tragic,  takes  advantage  of 
the  device,  for  the  purpose  of  imparting  information  to  the 
eavesdropper.  In  "  All's  Well,"  the  Countess  learns  that  her 
son  is  the  object  of  Helena's  affection  through  the  Steward's 
report  of  Helena's  soliloquy  which  he  has  overheard: 
"  Madam,  I  was  very  late  more  near  her  than  I  think  she 
wish'd  me.  Alone  she  was,  and  did  communicate  to  herself 
her  own  words  to  her  own  ears ;  she  thought,  I  dare  vow  for 
her,  they  touch'd  not  any  stranger  sense.  Her  matter  was,  she 
lov'd  your  son"  (I,  3,  1 10-126).  Here  is  a  frank  statement  of 
the  convention  which  is  used  no  less  obviously  but  with  a  nicer 
regard  for  romantic  suspense  in  the  balcony  scene  of  "  Romeo 
and  Juliet"  (II,  2).  There  Romeo,  listening  to  his  love's 
meditations,  asks  himself,  "  Shall  I  hear  more,  or  shall  I 
speak  at  this  ?" 

The  overheard  soliloquy  is  rare  in  Sanskrit  drama,  but  there 
is  one  instance  of  it  in  a  romantic  setting.  Vatsa  in  the 
"  Ratnavali "  joyously  anticipates  meeting  his  sweetheart,'*^ 
and,  while  he  is  soliloquizing,  Vasantaka  enters  with  the  lady, 
and,  overhearing  him,  observes  to  her,  "  Lady  Sagarika,  I  hear 
my  friend  muttering  to  himself  his  anxiety  for  your  appear- 
ance." Roman  comedy  is  replete  with  overheard  soliloquies. 
"Did  you  hear  me?"  asks  Megadorus  in  the  "  Aulularia  "  of 
Plautus  (III,  10)  after  indulging  in  a  long  monolog.  "Every- 
thing from  the  very  beginning,"  responds  Euclio.  Sometimes 
the  soliloquy  is  only  partially  overheard,^*  and  sometimes 
merely  the  voice  is  heard.^^ 

''^  Furness  Variorum  Edition  of  Antony  and  Cleopatra,  pp.  417,  447. 
^  Select  Specimens  of  the  Hindu  Drama,  Vol.  II,  p.  296. 
"Terence,  pp.  30,  342,  216. 
"Plautus,  Vol.  I,  pp.  195,  202,  417;  Vol.  II,  p.  74. 


95 

A  curious  by-product  of  the  overheard  sohloquy  in  Roman 
comedy,  with  survivals  in  France  and  Italy,^"  is  the  feigned 
soliloquy.  The  contrivance  is  both  simple  and  ludicrous:  A 
is  on  the  stage,  B  enters ;  A  pretends  to  soliloquize  about  the 
misfortunes  of  B,  or  on  some  other  subject  of  vital  interest 
to  B,  who,  notwithstanding  his  frantic  efforts  to  learn  the  truth, 
is  ignored  for  some  time  by  A.  Shakespeare  makes  use  of  the 
device  denuded  of  its  Roman  eccentricities  when  Edmund  of 
"  Lear  "  pretends  to  meditate  on  the  eclipses  for  the  benefit  of 
the  approaching  Edgar,  who  inquires,  "  How  now,  brother 
Edmund!  what  serious  contemplation  are  you  in?"  (I,  2,  150). 

Such  intricacies,  however,  are  not  favored  by  the  English 
drama.  Indeed  the  overheard  soliloquy  does  not  gain  its  vogue 
until  the  advent  of  foreign  influence,  although  it  exists  inde- 
pendently in  a  crude  form.  For  example,  Mercy  in  the 
morality  "  Mankind  "  concludes  a  hortative  monolog  with  the 
adjuration,  "  I  besech  you  hertyly  have  this  premedytacyone," 
whereupon  Mischief  enters,  evidently  overhearing  the  last 
words,  as  he  rejoins,  "  I  besech  you  hertyly,  leve  yower  cal- 
culacyon ! ""  "Damon  and  Pythias"  (1564?)  contains  an 
overheard  soliloquy,^*  for  the  first  time  boldly  set  forth  after 
the  manner  of  Roman  comedy.  The  device  flourishes  in  Eng- 
lish pastoral  drama — notably  in  Fletcher's  "  Faithful  Shepherd- 
ess "^^ — but  it  is  conspicuously  absent  in  the  continental 
models,  Tasso's  "  Aminta  "  and  Guarini's  "  Pastor  Fido."  For 
more  than  three  hundred  years,  the  overheard  soliloquy  has 
been  occasionally  utilized  in  English  drama,  but  during  the 
past  century,  its  popularity  has  been  largely  confined  to  melo- 
drama. In  fact,  one  of  the  earliest  representatives  of  the 
melodrame  in  England,  Holcroft's  translation  called  "A  Tale 

°' Plautus,  Vol.  II,  pp.  15,  262;  Terence,  pp.  47,  121;  Moliere,  L' Amour 
Medecin,  I,  6  ;  Les  Fourberies  de  Scapin,  II,  7  ;  Guarini's  //  Pastor  Fido, 
translated  by  Sir  Richard  Fanshawe,  p.  98. 

"Manly,  Vol.  I,  p.  317.  Cf.  exactly  parallel  instances  in  Sidney  Grundy, 
cited  by  H.  M.  Paull,  in  "  Dramatic  Convention  with  Special  Reference  to 
the  Soliloquy,"  Fortnightly  Review,  May,  1899,  p.  865, 

°^  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  IX,  p.  34. 

^°  Mermaid  edition,  pp.  335,  351,  358,  398. 


96 

of  Mystery"  (1802),  contains  a  soliloquy  overheard  by  the 
lurking  villain.^" 

The  convention  of  the  overheard  soliloquy  in  England, 
doubtless  largely  due  to  the  example  of  Shakespeare,  has 
always  been  a  simple  affair :  A  is  talking  aloud  and  B  over- 
hears what  he  says.  In  Roman  and  French  comedy,  the  solilo- 
quy partially  overheard  or  wholly  pretended  often  distorts  the 
device  beyond  the  semblance  of  reality.  Yet  Moliere,  who 
sometimes  utilizes  its  most  extreme  forms,  has  a  conception  of 
the  soliloquy  as  a  symbol  of  thought,  and  twice  he  seeks  to 
harmonize  this  idea  with  that  of  the  overheard  soliloquy.  Har- 
pagon  ("L'Avare,"  I,  4),  like  Autolycus,  fears  that  his 
monolog  has  betrayed  him,  but,  unlike  the  Shakespearean  char- 
acter, he  attempts  to  explain  why  he  has  been  talking  aloud: 
"Je  crois  que  j'ai  parle  haut  en  raissonant  tout  seul."  In 
"  Scapin,"  Moliere  again  apologizes  for  the  phenomenon. 
While  Argante  is  soliloquizing  (I,  4),  the  eavesdropping  Scapin 
remarks  in  an  apart,  "  II  a  deja  apris  I'affaire,  et  elle  lui  tient 
si  fort  en  tete,  que  tout  seul  il  en  parle  haut." 

At  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  Joanna  Baillie 
is  confronted  with  the  same  dilemma :  how  can  thought  be  over- 
heard? In  her  "Orra"  (I,  2),  she  gives  practically  the  same 
solution  as  Moliere's.  Cathrina  interrupts  the  soliloquizer 
with,  "Ha,  speakest  thou  to  thyself?" 

"  Rudolf  (starting).     I  did  not  speak. 
Cathrina.     Thou  didst ;  thy  busy  mind  gave  sound  to  thoughts 
Which    thou   didst   utter   with    a    quick,    harsh   voice, 
Like  one  who  speaks  in  sleep." 

Shelley's  apology  in  the  mouth  of  Cenci  only  emphasizes  the 
incongruity  of  the  paradox: 

"  I  think  they  cannot  hear  me  at  that  door ; 
What   if  they   should  ?      And   yet    I    need   not   speak, 
Though  the  heart  triumphs  with  itself  in  words. 
O  thou  most  silent  air,  that  shalt  not  hear 
What  now  I  think  !  "  (I,  i ). 

Shakespeare  never  allows  the  antithesis  between  thought  and 
speech  to  become  evident  in  his  overheard  soliloquies,  and  con- 
™  Published  by  R.  Phillips,  London,  1802,  p.  42. 


97 

sequently  he  avoids  the  artistic  bkmders  of  the  apologists.  For 
him  the  overheard  sohloquy  is  always  speech,  and  nowhere 
does  he  show  a  finer  appreciation  of  technical  values  than  in 
the  balcony  scene  where  Romeo  and  Juliet  both  frankly  accept 
the  soliloquy  as  spoken.  "  She  speaks  !  "  exclaims  Romeo,  "  O 
speak  again,  bright  angel ! "  and  Juliet  is  not  surprised  that  her 
"  counsel  "  has  been  overheard.  The  nearest  approach  to  an 
apology  for  the  device  in  the  works  attributed  to  Shakespeare  is 
in  the  scene  in  "Titus  Andronicus  "  (III,  i)  in  which  Lucius 
remonstrates  with  Titus  for  having  apostrophized  the  stones  as 
tribunes,  and  the  afflicted  man  strives  to  justify  the  outbreak, 
asserting  that  he  prefers  to  address  stones  rather  than  tribunes. 
Here,  as  usual,  however,  Shakespeare  leaves  no  doubt  that  the 
overheard  soliloquy  is  speech.  Indeed  his  use  of  the  con- 
trivance is  both  consistent  and  effective.  It  is  true  that  the 
critic  of  today  may  be  disturbed  by  the  palpable  artifice  of  the 
climactic  situation  of  "  Love's  Labor's  Lost,"  or  by  the  the- 
atrical manipulation  of  the  death  of  Enobarbus;  but  even  the 
sophisticated  modern  must  admit  that  the  convention  of  the 
overheard  soliloquy  in  "  Romeo  and  Juliet "  adds  an  exquisite 
touch  to  one  of  the  most  romantic  episodes  in  drama,  and  that 
in  "  Twelfth  Night "  it  is  the  very  foundation  of  one  of  the 
merriest  scenes  in  English  comedy. 

The  Soliloquy  as  a  Convention  of  Structure 
In  estimating  the  value  of  the  Shakespearean  soliloquy  as  a 
structural  device,  it  is  manifestly  unfair  to  apply  modern 
standards.  The  stage  of  today  has  eliminated  the  need  of 
the  monologs  treated  in  this  and  the  preceding  chapter.  The 
drop  curtain  and  arrangements  for  ingress  and  egress  on  three 
sides  of  the  stage  have  removed  the  requirements  of  entrance 
and  exit  speeches ;  and  the  pause,  occasionally  with  an  empty 
stage,  has  largely  supplanted  the  link.  Again,  recent  lighting 
and  scenic  effects  have  made  explanations  of  "business"  less 
necessary  than  formerly;  and  these  improvements,  together 
with  the  picture-frame  proscenium,  have  given  an  air  of  veri- 
similitude to  the  performance  which  renders  absurd,  as  Pro- 
8 


98 

fessor  Brander  Matthews''^  has  shown,  the  artifice  of  the  over- 
heard soliloquy  and  the  exposition  monolog.  All  of  these 
devices  are  freely  employed  by  Elizabethan  dramatists  and  ac- 
cepted by  their  public  without  cavil,  because  their  platform 
stage  makes  possible  an  intimate  relation  between  actors  and 
auditors  and  so  naturally  fosters  the  structural  monolog  as  a 
convention. 

"  The  soliloquy  is  simply  a  convention  of  the  theatric  art, 
the  result  of  an  implied  contract  between  those  before  the  cur- 
tain and  those  behind  it.""^  Owing  to  this  tacit  agreement  be- 
tween playwright  and  public,  the  prolog  and  the  initial  soliloquy 
are  used  as  a  means  of  exposition  in  the  early  drama  of  Greece, 
India  and  China,  as  well  as  of  modern  nations.  In  classical 
drama,  the  chorus  and  the  messenger  often  perform  the  func- 
tion ;  and  in  the  plays  of  the  classicists — notably  of  seventeenth 
century  France — the  confidant  furnishes  an  excuse  for  long 
monologic  narratives.  The  soliloquy  has  been  a  favorite 
method  of  exposition  in  England  until  recently.  Now  that  the 
audience  rejects  this  convention,  the  modern  playwright,  fol- 
lowing the  technic  of  Ibsen,  has  skillfully  revived  the  con- 
fidant,— not,  however,  the  classicist  companion  whose  sole  duty 
is  listening.  The  new  confidant,  observes  a  writer  in  "  The 
Saturday  Review,"^^  "is  endowed  with  a  locus  standi  in  the 
form  of  a  character  and  a  real  connection  with  the  plot.  .  .  . 
To  him  are  often  confided  things  which  in  real  life  would  be 
confided  to  no  one.  The  confiding  of  such  things  to  him  is  an 
offence  against  fundamental  reality,  whereas  the  confiding  of 
them  through  soliloquy  is  but  an  offence  against  reality  of 
surface.  It  should  be  easier,  in  such  cases,  to  accept  soliloquy 
as  a  conventional  substitute  for  silent  thought  than  to  accept 
confidence  as  an  actual  substitute."  This  ingenious  defence  of 
the  exposition  monolog  is  remarkable  today  when  the  device  is 
almost  unanimously  tabooed,  and,  as  we  have  already  noted,  it 
is  unusual  in  the  criticism  of  other  periods.  The  position,  how- 
ever, is  not  unique,  as  it  has  been  emphatically  maintained  by 
so  astute  a  critic  as  M.  Jules  Lemaitre.    "  C'est  une  convention 

""Concerning  the  Soliloquy,"  Putnam's  Monthly,  Nov.,  1906,  p.  184. 
®-  Dec.  7,  1901,  p.  710. 


99 

necessaire,"  he  asserts.  "  II  n'y  a  pas  de  meilleur  moyen  de 
nous  faire  connaitre  ce  qu'un  personage  ne  pent,  avec  vraisem- 
blance,  dire  a  d'autres."®^ 

Criticism  of  the  structural  sohloquy  has  been  ahnost  ex- 
ckisively  confined  to  its  most  important  form,  the  exposition 
monolog,  ahhough  the  equally  conspicuous  but  less  frequent 
overheard  soliloquy  has  had  its  share  of  attention.  D'Aubignac 
condemns  it,  citing  the  authority  of  Scaliger  f^  and,  notwith- 
standing the  explanations  which  poets  have  advanced  in  its 
behalf,  it  has  been  subjected  to  disapproval  and  ridicule,  when- 
ever discussed.  It  is  remarkable,  moreover,  that  these  two 
classes  of  structural  soliloquies  are  the  only  ones,  so  far  as  I 
know,  which  have  received  the  critical  recognition  which  is  due 
them.  The  monologic  accompaniment  of  "  business,"  the  en- 
trance speech  and  the  exit  tag  have  been  practically  ignored, 
while  the  link  has  been  discussed  only  in  foreign  criticism, ^^ 
and  the  overheard  soliloquy  and  the  exposition  monolog  have 
been  reviewed,  for  the  most  part,  on  the  question  of  their  being 
natural.  "  Neither  soliloquy  nor  the  use  of  verse  can  be  con- 
demned on  the  mere  ground  that  they  are  unnatural,"  Pro- 
fessor Bradley*'^  observes  with  acumen.  "  No  dramatic  lan- 
guage is  natural ;  all  dramatic  language  is  idealized.  So  that 
the  question  as  to  the  soliloquy  must  be  one  as  to  the  degree 
of  idealization  and  the  balance  of  advantages  and  disad- 
vantages." 

Clearly  Shakespeare's  vindication  lies  in  the  advantages  of 
the  soliloquy  as  a  factor  in  the  technic  of  his  time.  He  finds 
the  various  manifestations  of  the  convention,  and  he  avails 
himself  of  them,  using  with  especial  frequency  the  exposition 
monolog,  the  link  and  the  exit  speech.  He  adds  nothing  to 
their  intricacy,  but,  only  in  exceptional  cases,  is  he  satisfied 
with  the  obviously  utilitarian  soliloquy.  Unconsciously,  per- 
haps, but  none  the  less  effectually,  he  performs  a  dual  service : 
first,  he  borrows  the  device  from  his  contemporaries  and  fits  it 

^Impressions  dc  Theatre,  premiere  serie,  p.  306. 

**  Whole  Art  of  the  Stage,  p.  58. 

*®  See  ante,  p.  83. 

^  Shakespearean  Tragedy,  p.  y2. 


100 

into  the  framework  of  his  piece ;  and  then  he  beautifies  it  with 
his  magic  touch.  "  Now  is  the  winter  of  our  discontent," 
"  Boy  Lucius  !  Fast  asleep  ?  "  "  Words  without  thoughts  never 
to  heaven  go," — these  are  respectively  exposition  monolog,  link 
and  exit  speech,  which,  for  distinction,  music  and  feeling  are 
unparalleled  outside  of  Shakespeare.  Nevertheless,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  structural  monologs  are  secondary  in  importance 
to  the  great  soliloquies  of  comedy  and  tragedy  which  constitute 
the  theme  for  the  remainder  of  this  investigation. 


CHAPTER  V 

Shakespeare's  use  of  the  Comic  Monolog 
Like  nearly  every  other  part  of  Elizabethan  drama,  the  comic 
monolog  is  the  product  of  both  classical  and  native  traditions, 
which  appear  almost  perfectly  blended  in  the  usage  of  Shake- 
speare. It  seems  a  far  cry  from  the  narration  of  the  Plautine 
puppet,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  recitation  of  the  medieval 
buffoon,  on  the  other,  to  the  matchless  soliloquies  of  Falstafif 
and  Benedick ;  but  there  are  lines  of  development  from  those 
divergent  sources  which  culminate  in  Shakespeare's  brilliant 
creations.  To  be  sure,  the  Shakespearean  monolog  is  usually 
inferior,  in  technic  and  spirit,  to  the  famous  meditations  of 
Benedick  and  Falstafif,  but,  as  Dr.  Johnson  observes,  "  it  is  no 
more  to  be  required  that  wit  should  always  be  blazing,  than 
that  the  sun  should  always  stand  at  noon."  Indeed,  the  variety 
of  Shakespeare's  comic  soliloquies  is  one  of  their  most  in- 
teresting features ;  but,  nevertheless,  they  fall  naturally  into 
groups,  the  basis  of  classification  being  the  nature  of  the 
speaker  rather  than  the  content  of  the  speech. 

There  are  seven  conspicuous  kinds  of  comic  monologists  in 
Shakespeare:  the  clown,  the  drunkard,  the  fantastic,  the 
cuckold,  the  rogue,  the  braggart  and  the  cynic.  The  few  re- 
maining soliloquizers  are  distinct  from  the  rest  in  their  humor- 
ous efforts  at  serious  meditation,  and,  since  they  have  the  intro- 
spective attitude  in  common,  they  may  be  styled  analysts. 
Many  of  these  types,  as  their  names  suggest,  have  illustrious 
predecessors,  whom  we  shall  note,  while  investigating  in  detail 
Shakespeare's  method  and  accomplishment. 

The  CloW'N 
The  monolog  of  the  clown  has  no  precise  analog  in  classic 
comedy.     The  narrative  of  the  Plautine  servant  usually  dis- 
closes him  more  of  a  sharper  than  a  buffoon.     Perhaps  he  is 
most  akin  to  the  Elizabethan  clown  in  the  long  discourse  of 

101 


102 

Sosia  which  opens  "  Amphitryon."  His  rehearsal  of  the  The- 
ban  victory,  preliminary  to  announcing  it  to  his  mistress,  is 
given  a  touch  of  amusing  realism  by  Moliere  when  he  has  the 
mistress  impersonated  by  Sosia's  lantern.  This  device  of  rep- 
resenting people  by  inanimate  objects  is  ludicrously  carried  out, 
it  will  be  remembered,  in  Launce's  first  monolog  ("  Two  Gentle- 
men of  Verona,"  II,  3,  i,  35). 

The  important  ancestor  of  the  Shakespearean  clown  is  doubt- 
less the  strolling  entertainer  of  medieval  England,  and,  although 
no  direct  relation  can  be  shown  to  exist  between  his  monolog 
and  that  of  the  Roman  mime,^  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that 
there  probably  was  a  remote  historical  prototype.  "  Origi- 
nally," says  Mr.  E.  K.  Chambers,^  "the  mimes  seem  to  have 
performed  in  monologs,  and  the  action  of  their  pieces  continued 
to  be  dominated  by  a  single  personage."  The  form  of  enter- 
tainment sometimes  designated  as  "  Horatian  comedy,"^  consist- 
ing of  a  story  told  in  one  or  more  monologs  and  illustrated  by 
characters  in  action,  flourished  during  the  twelfth  century. 
The  "  elegiac "  and  "  epic "  tragedies  and  comedies  of  the 
period,  often  derived  from  Terence,  were,  according  to  Dr. 
Cloetta,*  "  intended  for  a  half-dramatic  declamation  by  min- 
strels." It  is  of  interest  that  these  monologic  narratives  often 
contain  direct  quotations  of  dialog, — a  device  used  with  tragic 
force  in  "  Richard  the  Third,"^  and  with  comic  effect  in  the 
monologs  of  Launce  and  Launcelot  Gobbo, 

In  Italy  the  folk  drama  has  its  beginning  in  monolog,  without 
the  customary  preliminary  step  of  song,^  while  in  France,  dur- 
ing the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  there  are  two  genres 
of  popular  recitations,  the  sermon  joyeux  and  the  monologue. 
The  word  "  monolog,"  it  may  be  observed  in  this  connection, 
probably    originated    in    seventeenth    century    France.'^      The 

'P.  S.  Allen,  "The  Medieval  Mimus,"  Modern  Philology,  Jan.,  1910,  Vol. 
VII,  No.  3,  p.  329  ff. 

-  Medieval  Stage,  Vol.  I,  p.  5. 

*  Geschicte  des  Neuercn  Dramas,  by  W.  Creizenach,  Vol.  I,  p.  42. 

* "  Beitrage  zur  Litteratur,"  quoted  by  E.  K.  Chambers,  Medieval  Stage, 
Vol.  II,  p.  213. 

"See  ante,  p.  64,  and  compare  with  p.  128  of  this  chapter. 

'  Creizenach,  Vol.  I,  p.  312. 

^  Creizenach,  Vol.  II,  p.  287,  note  2. 


103 

French  monologue,  inheriting  some  of  the  broadly  farcical 
traditions  of  the  fabliau,  consists  of  "  a  scene  for  one  person, 
in  which  the  actor  plays  a  true  role  ...  a  complete  comedy 
put  in  a  limited  framework."^  For  mirth-provoking  ingenuity, 
some  of  these  pieces — the  celebrated  "  Franc-archer  de  Bag- 
nolet,"  for  example — compare  favorably  with  the  monolog  of 
the  Shakespearean  clown  at  his  best.  It  was  only  a  step  to  the 
introduction  of  dialog,''  and  the  probabilities  are,  as  M.  Lin- 
tilhac^"  states  them,  that  "  there  was  emulation  and  very  likely 
filiation  between  the  dramatic  monologue  and  the  farce "  of 
France. 

It  seems  equally  probable,  although  even  more  difficult  to 
prove,  that  the  stroller  of  medieval  England  left  his  impress 
on  the  comic  monologs  of  subsequent  drama.  One  may  reason- 
ably conjecture  that  the  minstrel  included  in  his  repertory  the 
kind  of  boisterous  appeals  to  the  crowd  which  survive  in  the 
monologs  of  the  Vice  of  miracles,  moralities,  interludes,  and 
early  comedies  and  tragedies.  In  all  of  these  species,  the 
monolog  of  the  clown,  usually  known  as  the  Vice,  presents  cer- 
tain well  defined  characteristics.  He  is  a  roisterer  who  bluster- 
ingly  accosts  the  audience  and  cracks  some  jokes  for  their 
amusement.  Indeed,  the  address  to  the  audience  is  so  in- 
timately associated  with  the  comic  monolog,  particularly  with 
that  of  the  clown,  that  it  seems  advisable  to  make  a  slight 
digression  at  this  juncture,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  historical 
and  technical  relation  of  the  phenomenon  to  the  Shakespearean 
soliloquy. 

The  parabasis  of  Aristophanes  and  the  prolog  of  Plautus  and 
Terence  are  monologic  addresses  to  the  audience.  In  fact, 
the  so-called  soliloquies  of  these  masters,  almost  invariably  con- 
versational in  tone,  tacitly  imply  the  presence  of  hearers.  On 
rare  occasions,  Plautus  has  his  monologist  accost  the  spectators, 
for  the  purpose  of  emphasizing  the  exposition.  Thus  Stephan- 
ium,  in  "  Stichus  "  (IV,  3),  proclaims,  "I  wish  it  to  appear 

' "  Le  monologue  dramatique   dans   I'ancien   theatre   Frangais,"  by   fimile 
Picot,  Romania,  Vol.  XV,  p.  358. 
*  Picot,  Romania,  Vol.  XV,  p.  361. 
^^  La  cotnedie  moyen  age  et  rennaissance,  p.  203. 


104 

wondrous  to  none  of  you,  Spectators,  why  I  who  Hye  there 
(pointing)  am  come  out  hither  from  this  other  house:  I'll 
inform  you  thereon. "^^  Once,  in  the  "  Aulularia  "  (V,  2),  he 
makes  a  sensational  use  of  the  device,  when  Euclio,  raging  oyer 
the  loss  of  his  treasure,  cries,  "I  beseech  you,  give  me  your  aid, 
and  point  me  out  the  person  that  has  taken  it  away.  What's 
the  matter?  Why  do  you  laugh ? "  He  proceeds  to  interrogate 
one  of  the  spectators.  Moliere,  adapting  this  monolog  in 
"L'Avare"  (IV,  7)  does  not  dispense  with  the  direct  address. 

Foreign  adaptations  in  early  English  drama  make  conspicu- 
ous use  of  the  device.  "  Calisto  and  Melibaea "  (1516-33), 
from  the  Spanish  through  the  Italian,  contains  many  long 
monologs  rhetorical,  expository  and  lamenting,  but  almost 
always,  even  when  serious,  they  are  spoken  directly  to  the 
audience.  Translations  from  the  neo-Latin,  such  as  "  Ther- 
sites  "  (1537  c.)  and  "The  Disobedient  Child"  (1560  c),  have 
monologs  accosting  the  spectators  directly  and  indirectly. 
Likewise,  the  comedies  built  on  classical  models,  such  as 
"Roister  Bolster"  (1552  c.)  and  "Jack  Juggler"  (1553-8  c), 
freely  avail  themselves  of  the  contrivance. 

As  we  have  observed,  in  all  forms  of  early  English  drama, 
the  clownish  monologist,  generally  appearing  as  the  Vice, 
salutes  his  auditors.  Garcio,  "  a  mery  lad  "  of  the  Towneley 
miracle  on  the  killing  of  Abel,  greets  the  spectators  with  an 
"All  hale!,"  adjures  them  to  make  no  noise,  informs  them, 
"  Gedlyngis,  I  am  a  fulle  grete  wat,"  and  departs  with  a  "  ffar- 
well,  for  I  am  gone."^^  In  "Like  Will  to  Like"  (pr.  1568), 
Nichol  New f angle  presents  the  knave  of  clubs  to  a  man  in  the 
audience  with  the  jovial  remark,  "  Like  unto  like."^^  Ambi- 
dexter, the  Vice  of  "  Cambises "  (S.  R.  1569-70),  not  only 
gives  a  dissertation  on  his  name,^*  but  he  also  has  a  number  of 
roistering  monologs  addressed  directly  to  his  hearers. ^^  On 
one  occasion,  he  pretends  to  single  out  a  girl  of  the  audience: 

"Vol.  I,  p.  246.     Cf.  Vol.  I,  pp.  201,  282;  Vol.  II,  pp.  214,  231. 

"  Townley  Plays,  E.  E.  T.  S.,  Extra  Series,  Vol.  LXXI,  p.  9. 

"  The  Dramatic  IVrititigs  of  Ulpian  Fulwell,  edited  by  J.  S.  Farmer,  p.  4. 

"Manly,  Vol.  II,  p.  168, 

"  Pp.  173,  189,  191. 


105 

"  How  say  you,  maid,  to  mary  me  wil  ye  be  glad  ?  "'"''  Such 
methods  for  causing  laughter  are  not  unknown  in  modern 
vaudeville. 

From  the  examples  cited,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  a  certain 
distinction  between  the  salutations  of  the  monologists  of  Ro- 
man comedy  and  of  early  English  drama.  Plautus  sometimes 
addresses  the  spectators,  for  the  purpose  of  elucidating  or  of 
emphasizing  the  plot,  while  the  English  buffoon  is  wont  to 
greet  his  audience  with  no  other  purpose  than  that  of  jesting. 
With  the  advent  of  classical  influence,  there  are  a  few  instances 
of  the  direct  address  for  the  sake  of  imparting  information. 
For  example,  Mathew  Merygreeke's  simple  statement : 

"  But   now   of   Roister   Bolster   somewhat   to   expresse, 
That  ye  may  esteeme  him  after  his  worthinesse !  "  (I,  i). 

The  frequent  monologic  narratives  and  commentaries  of  Dic- 
con,  the  "  Bedlem  "  of  "  Gammer  Gurton,"  have  a  distinctively 
native  tang,  although  in  length  and  content  they  show  clas- 
sical influence.  Diccon's  manner  of  addressing  the  audience 
is  a  favorite  one  with  subsequent  clowns:  "Ye  see,  masters, 
that  one  end  tapt  of  this  my  short  devise!  "  he  observes  (II,  3), 
and  again :  "  Now,  sirs,  do  you  no  more,  but  kepe  my  coun- 
saile  juste"  (III,  3).  The  Elizabethan  clown  always  assumes 
that  he  is  addressing  his  hearers,  and  occasionally  he  signifies 
the  fact  with  a  jovial  vocative,  such  as  "  masters  "  or  "  sirs." 

Clowns  in  the  extant  dramas  of  Shakespeare's  immediate 
predecessors  are  by  no  means  numerous.  Miles  of  Greene's 
"Friar  Bacon  and  Friar  Bungay"  (1598  c.)  has  two  sprightly 
monologs  in  which  he  calls  the  audience  "sir"  (sc.  XI,  XV). 
Raffe's  playful  account  of  the  astronomer's  mishap,  in  Lyly's 
"Gallathea"  (pr.  1592)  (V,  i),  is  guiltless  of  vocatives, 
although  the  story  is  obviously  told  to  the  auditors.  The 
nearest  approach  to  a  comic  soliloquy  in  Marlowe  is  the  speech 
in  "Doctor  Faustus "  (1588?)  in  which  the  Horse-Courser 
explains  to  the  spectators  how  he  got  wet  (sc.  XI).  Typical 
monologs  of  the  clown,  with  a  suggestion  of  the  native  fun  of 
Shakespeare,   occur    in    "  Mucedorus "    (pr.    1598)^"    and    in 

^*  P.  199- 

"  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  VII,  pp.  208,  234. 


106 

"Englishmen  for  my  Money"  (1598  c.)  (Ill,  i),  both  speak- 
ing to  the  bystanders  collectively  as  "  sirrah." 

Although  the  diction  of  all  of  Shakespeare's  clowns  is  con- 
versational, only  Launce  directly  addresses  the  audience.  He 
uses  the  conventional  "sir"  (II,  3,  21),  and  he  has  a  man- 
nerism of  exclaiming,  "Look  you"  (III,  i,  261,  276;  IV,  4, 
2).  He  says  to  his  auditors,  "  I'll  show  you  the  manner  of  it " 
(II,  3,  15),  and  again  he  frankly  assures  them,  "You  shall 
judge  "  (IV,  4,  18).  Aside  from  these  remarks,  there  are  sur- 
prisingly few  direct  appeals  to  the  audience  in  Shakespeare. 
At  rare  intervals,  Falstaff  uses  the  second  person,^^  but  unob- 
trusively. Thisbe's  farewell  to  her  friends  in  "  A  Midsummer- 
Night's  Dream"  (V,  i,  352)  may  be  interpreted  as  referring 
to  the  onlookers,  but,  if  so,  it  is  excusable  as  a  burlesque  of 
such  absurdities  as  the  exhortation  of  the  audience  by  the 
dying  Cambises.^^ 

An  indictment  may  be  brought  against  Shakespeare's  art, 
however,  in  the  case  of  Petruchio's  soliloquy  ("Taming  of 
the  Shrew,"  IV,  i,  191-214).  The  dramatist  weakens  the 
speech  by  terminating  it  with  a  jocular  appeal  to  the  hearers, 
a  conclusion  evidently  tacked  on,  since  it  does  not  appear  in 
the  original  "A  Shrew. "-°  This  tag,  almost  epilogic,  suggests 
the  analogy  of  the  Elizabethan  epilog,  usually  spoken  by  one 
of  the  players  directly  to  the  audience. 

"  He  that  knows  better  how  to  tame  a  shrew, 
Now  let  him  speak ;  'tis  charity  to  show," 

cries  Petruchio  as  he  leaves  the  stage. 

The  abrupt  pointing  of  the  moral  of  the  action,  quite  pos- 
sibly the  outgrowth  of  the  tradition  of  the  hortative  monolog 
of  the  morality,  is  by  no  means  unusual  in  Elizabethan  times. 
Young  Arthur  of  "How  a  Man  May  Choose  a  Good  Wife 
from  a  Bad  "  demands,  "  What  husband  here  but  would  wish 
such  a  wife? "2^     There  are  many  such  admonitions  to  a  class 

'«  The  Second  Part  of  Henry  the  Fourth,  V,  i,  93 ;  The  Merry  Wives  of 
Windsor,  III,  5,  11. 
"  See  ante,  p.  78. 
*"  See  ante,  p.  32. 
="  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  IX,  p.  87. 


107 

of  the  audience.  Parolles  has  a  word  of  warning  for  him 
"who  knows  himself  a  braggart"  ("All's  Well,"  IV,  4,  370), 
and  Posthumus  admonishes  "you  married  ones"  ("  Cymbe- 
line,"  V,  I,  2).  Likewise,  Heywood's  Mistress  Frankford" 
and  Jane  Shore-^  both  urge  the  women  of  the  audience  to 
profit  by  their  sad  examples. 

Specific  adjurations  of  this  nature  almost  imperceptibly 
merge  into  apostrophes  to  the  absent,  and  the  two  are  not 
always  easily  distinguished.  For  example,  the  speeches  by 
Parolles  and  Posthumus  just  mentioned  might  be  considered 
as  generalizations  independent  of  the  audience.  Again,  Othello's 
"Look,  where  she  comes"  (III,  3,  277)  and  similarly  pre- 
pared entrances^*  lost  their  significance  before  Shakespeare 
used  them,  although  perhaps  they  were  originally  intended 
for  the  spectators. 

•  It  may  appear  that  undue  attention  has  been  given  the  address 
to  the  audience,  since,  manifestly,  the  soliloquy,  which  is  a 
speaking  alone,  cannot  be  spoken  to  others.  However,  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  comic  soliloquy  evolves  from  the 
buffoon's  monologic  greeting  to  the  spectators,  modified  by  the 
discursive  narrative  soliloquy  of  classical  comedy,  itself  not 
free  from  the  direct  address.  Shakespeare's  usage  exhibits 
the  transition  of  the  monolog  from  the  funny  story  told  the 
audience  to  the  laughable  revelation  of  the  soliloquizer's  in- 
most thoughts  and  emotions.  Professors  Kilian,  Bradley  and 
Johnson  agree  that  Shakespeare's  soliloquies  "  are  in  some 
cases  too  evidently  addressed  to  the  audience,  thus  putting  the 
player  in  an  inartistic  relation  to  them  and  taking  him  out  of 
the  character  for  the  moment."-^  The  fact  is  incontestable, 
but  the  wonder  is  that  there  are  so  few  instances.  Petruchio 
and  Falstaff  are  mild  offenders,  while  the  clown  Launce  is  the 
only  Shakespearean  monologist  who  conspicuously  uses  the 
direct  address. 

Whether  the  monolog  of  the  Shakespearean  clown  takes  the 

'^  A  Woman  Killed  with  Kindness,  IV,  6. 

^  King  Edward  IV,  Part  II,  IV,  3. 

**  See  ante,  p.  55. 

^Shakespeare  and  his  Critics,  by  C.  F.  Johnson,  p.  376. 


108 

form  of  narration,  characterization,  lamentation  or  philosophiz- 
ing, it  shows  the  dual  heritage  of  classicism  and  medievalism. 
Launce's  stories  have  something  of  the  classic  in  being  lengthy 
narratives,  but  in  theme  they  are  as  racy  and  indigenous  as 
folk  tale  or  fabliau.  Like  nearly  all  other  comic  monologs, 
Launce's  are  complete  in  themselves  and  practically  indepen- 
dent of  the  rest  of  the  performance.  His  account  of  the  part- 
ing (II,  3,  1-35)  is  as  ludicrously  dramatic  as  the  French 
monologue  at  its  best.  The  fun  arises  not  only  from  the 
absurdity  of  the  "business,"  but  also  from  the  preliminary 
casting  of  parts.  Dr.  Johnson,  commenting  on  Sir  Thomas 
Hamme's  emendation  for  the  sake  of  rationalizing  the  tangle 
beginning,  "  I  am  the  dog,"  pertinently  observes,  "  This  cer- 
tainly is  more  reasonable,  but  I  know  not  how  much  reason 
the  author  intended  to  bestow  on  Launce's  soliloquy."  Launce's 
anecdotes  concerning  his  dog  (IV,  4,  1-42)  doubtless  made  a 
strong  appeal  to  the  Elizabethan  audience  because  of  their 
vulgarity,  but  the  taste  of  all  ages  must  succumb  to  the  droll 
humor  resulting  from  the  master's  unrequited  devotion  to 
his  cur. 

In  the  class  of  clownish  narration  may  be  included  Bottom's 
disjointed  account  of  his  dream  ("A  Midsummer-Night's 
Dream,"  IV,  i,  203-224),  the  fun  springing  from  the  incom- 
pleteness of  the  discourse.  **  Methought  I  was, — and  methought 
I  had, — •"  Bottom's  reticence  is  in  itself  an  inducement  to 
laughter,  as  the  audience  can  readily  supply  the  omissions. 
The  absurdity  of  the  monolog  is  enhanced  by  the  incorrect  com- 
bination of  subject  and  predicate — "the  eye  of  man  hath  not 
heard,"  and  so  forth — a  trick  used  elsewhere  in  the  piece  for 
ludicrous  effect  (III,  i,  93;  V,  i,  194). 

Analyzing  the  fun  of  Shakespeare's  soliloquies  may  seem 
very  much  like  breaking  the  traditional  butterfly  upon  the 
wheel,  but,  if  not  pushed  to  an  extreme,  the  laboratory  method 
is  perhaps  the  most  satisfactory  test  of  the  playwright's  tech- 
nic.  In  the  matter  of  clownish  characterization,  the  results 
are  chiefly  negligible.  To  be  sure,  Costard's  bits  of  portraiture 
in  fantastic  phraseology  ("Love's  Labor's  Lost,"  IV,  i,  142, 
151)  have  an  element  of  humor  in  the  speaker's  assumed  supe- 


109 

riority,  as  well  as  in  his  linguistic  foppishness.  Launce's 
monolog  on  his  sweetheart  (III,  i,  261-278)  is  somewhat 
funny  because  of  his  negative  manner  of  divulging  his  love  and 
his  lack  of  characterization  in  the  items  describing  the  lady. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  cataloging  of  the  striking  qualities  of 
Bardolph,  Pistol  and  Nym  by  the  Boy  in  "Henry  the  Fifth" 
(III,  2,  28-57),  ^"d  ^""^s  further  comment  on  Pistol  in  con- 
trast with  the  other  two  worthies  (IV,  5,  70-82)  are  difficult 
to  construe  as  amusing,  except  in  the  fact  that  the  remarks  are 
made  by  a  precocious  small  boy.  The  lad  is  not  a  clown,  but 
his  monologs  fall  in  line  with  other  clownish  characterizations, 
such  as  the  list  of  prisoners  given  by  Pompey,  the  clown  of 
"Measure  for  Measure"  (IV,  3,  1-21),  another  supposedly 
humorous  speech.  The  most  ludicrous  delineation  of  character 
in  Shakespearean  soliloquy  is  Falstaff's  inimitable  description 
of  Justice  Shallow  ("  The  Second  Part  of  Henry  the  Fourth," 
III,  2,  323-357)  ;  but  Falstaff  is  far  from  being  a  clown,  and 
all  of  his  soliloquies  will  presently  be  treated  together  as  a  study 
of  his  personality.  Again,  Launcelot  Gobbo's  ruminations 
("The  Merchant  of  Venice,"  II,  2,  1-33)  are  unquestionably 
those  of  a  clown,  but  they  are  reserved  for  consideration  in 
connection  with  the  subject  of  comic  introspection. 

The  clownish  monologists  have  many  subjects  for  their  re- 
marks. Costard  philosophizes  on  the  magic  word  "  remunera- 
tion "  (III,  I,  136-144).  The  servant  Grumio  of  "The  Tam- 
ing of  the  Shrew"  laments  the  annoyances  of  his  lot  (IV,  i, 
i-ii).  This  is  a  conventional  theme  for  the  soliloquizing  ser- 
vants of  Roman  comedy,  and  a  similar  instance  occurs  in  the 
"  Sakuntala"  of  Kalidasa,  when  Mathavya,  the  emperor's  buf- 
foon, complains  of  the  life  of  the  hunter  which  has  been  forced 
upon  him.  In  "  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  the  clown-servant  makes 
an  elaborate  statement  of  his  inability  to  read  (I,  2,  38-45), 
creating  amusement  in  Bottom's  style  by  the  wrong  collocation 
of  words.  Trinculo's  droll  attempt  to  classify  Caliban  (II, 
2,  17-43)  is  capped  with  the  memorable  saw,  "Misery  acquaints 
a  man  with  strange  bedfellows."  The  doggerel  "prophecy" 
of  the  Fool  in  "Lear"   (HI,  28,  79-95)  is  awkwardly  intro- 


110 

duced  and  nonsensically  terminated,  and,  indeed,  has  no  excuse 
for  being.     It  is  unquestionably  spurious.^® 

To  complete  the  miscellaneous  collection  of  monologs  by 
Shakespearean  clowns,  one  more  should  be  added,  a  little  com- 
ment by  Mistress  Quickly  in  "The  Merry  Wives"  (III,  4, 
105-115).  Mistress  Quickly  is  really  a  she-clown,  and  her 
soliloquy  is  funny  chiefly  because  of  her  guileless  duplicity: 
she  swears  to  do  everything  in  her  power  for  all  three  suitors, — 
"  for  so  I  have  promised,  and  I'll  be  as  good  as  my  word."  It 
is  not  surprising  to  find  in  Mistress  Quickly's  monolog  a  mala- 
propism — "  speciously  "  for  "  especially," — since  she  is  addicted 
to  this  form  of  discourse;  but  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  device 
is  often  employed  by  Shakespeare.  Costard's  "  obscenely " 
(IV,  I,  145)  is  intentionally  misapplied,  while  other  instances 
are  afforded  by  Launce's  "prodigious  son"  (II,  3,  4)  and 
Launcelot  Gobbo's  "devil  incarnation"  (II,  2,  28). 

But  the  verbal  confusion  of  the  Shakespearean  clown,  as  a 
factor  for  producing  mirth,  is  subordinate  to  his  psychological 
confusion.  Trinculo's  fear  of  the  storm,  together  with  his  per- 
plexity as  to  the  classification  of  the  fish-like  monster,  Launce- 
lot Gobbo's  uncertainty  as  to  whether  to  budge  or  no,  and 
Bottom's  amazement  at  his  dream, — these  states  of  mind  are 
essentially  comic.  Previously,  the  buffoon  had  created  amuse- 
ment by  his  bluster,  word-play,  jingles  or  the  recounting  of  an 
anecdote,  but  his  speech  had  scarcely  a  trace  of  individuality: 
he  was  merely  a  clown.  Shakepeare,  retaining  the  clown  as  a 
stock  figure,  adds  a  vitalizing  touch  of  human  nature.  Launce 
is  an  illustration.  Not  only  is  fresh  ingenuity  given  to  the  con- 
ventional story-teller,  but  further  he  is  endowed  with  a  ruling 
passion,  his  devotion  to  his  dog.  Thus  the  monologs  of  Launce, 
although  farcical,  are  infused  with  the  spirit  of  comedy. 

The  Drunkard 

Allied  with  the  broadly  farcical  effect  of  the  clown's  monolog 
is  that  of  the  drunkard.  Indeed,  clowns  and  drunkards  in  real 
life  are  wont  to  mutter  incoherently  to  themselves,  and  hence 
there  is  an  exceptional  degree  of  verisimilitude  in  their  stage 

^  A.  C.  Bradley,  Shakespearean  Tragedy,  p.  452. 


Ill 

soliloquies.  From  Plautus  and  Terence  to  the  so-called  musi- 
cal comedies  of  our  day,  the  drunken  monologist  has  been  a 
favorite  with  the  groundlings.  The  intoxicated  Pseudolus,  in 
the  play  by  Plautus  of  that  name  (V,  i),  gives  a  lengthy 
account  of  the  wanton  feast  he  has  been  enjoying,  and  he 
introduces  a  dance,  saying  that  wine  has  laid  hold  of  his  feet. 
Chremes,  in  the  "  Eunuchus  "  of  Terence  (IV,  6),  also  admits 
that  wine  is  too  much  for  his  feet. 

Shakespeare's  Stephano  proclaims  his  intoxication  by  re- 
course to  the  bottle,  as  he  observes,  "  Here's  my  comfort " 
("The  Tempest,"  II,  2,  47,  57).  By  way  of  a  specialty,  he 
enters  singing  a  "  scurvy  tune."  His  surprise  upon  discover- 
ing the  four-legged  monster  is  tempered  by  the  wine  which 
warms  him,  and  accordingly  his  emotions  are  sufficiently  dif- 
ferentiated from  those  of  Trinculo,  whose  monolog  immediately 
precedes.  It  is  perhaps  worthy  of  note  that  "  Trinculo  drunk, 
but  something  recovered "  is  assigned  a  vulgar  monolog  in 
"Albumazar  "  (V,  8),  a  play  which  was  acted  in  1614.  There 
is  nothing  Shakespearean  about  the  speech,  except  the  name 
and  condition  of  the  speaker,  but  these  items  seems  to  attest  a 
certain  popularity  of  the  episode  in  "  The  Tempest." 

No  such  enduring  notoriety  has  attached  to  the  trifling  inter- 
lude by  Stephano,  however,  as  has  been  lavished  upon  the 
monolog  of  the  Porter  in  "Macbeth"  (II,  3, 1-23).  Stephano's 
song  and  remarks,  like  the  dance  and  talk  of  Pseudolus,  merely 
constitute  amusement  for  a  moment,  with  no  ulterior  signifi- 
cance: but  the  Porter's  speech  interrupts  a  scene  of  tense 
tragedy.  Herein  lies  its  fame,  its  opprobrium  and  its  power. 
The  position  of  the  monolog  is  its  important  feature.  The 
murder  is  committed,  and  straightway  the  knocking  begins. 
The  moment  of  keen  suspense  is  prolonged  and  augmented  to 
the  point  of  hysteria  by  the  appearance  and  maunderings  of 
the  drunkard.  His  words,  almost  drowned  by  the  hubbub  at 
the  gate,  are  of  minor  consequence.  It  is  his  dramaturgic  duty 
to  accentuate  the  theatrical  effect  of  the  knocking.  Eleven 
times  he  uses  the  word  "  knock " ;  what  does  the  knocking 
mean?     DeQuincey  has  well  depicted  its  sinister  and  porten- 


112 

tons  fascination,  while  Joseph  Jefferson^"  has  emphasized  its 
dramaturgic  significance. 

"  Comic  relief  "  is  the  popular  catch-word  interpretation  of 
the  Porter's  speech ;  perhaps  "  comic  intensification  "  would  be 
slightly  more  suggestive  of  its  function.  The  observations  of 
the  drowsy  drunkard,  imagining  himself  the  porter  of  hell- 
gate,  and  welcoming  in  his  maudlin  fancy  the  farmer,  the 
Jesuit  equivocator  and  the  tailor,  with  accompanying  local  hits, — 
these  are  boisterously  farcical  in  themselves;  and,  because  of 
this  fact,  they  serve  to  intensify  the  lurid  tragedy  of  the  situa- 
tion. No  one  understands  better  than  Shakespeare  the  dra- 
matic value  of  the  quick  emotional  shift.  Like  the  grave- 
digger's  scene  of  "  Hamlet,"  the  Porter's  monolog  is  a  gro- 
tesque contrast,  nevertheless  harmonizing  with  the  tragic  theme. 
This  Porter  of  hell-gate  is  in  reality  the  door-keeper  of  a  castle 
which  has  just  been  rendered  a  hell  by  the  perpetration  of  a 
hideous  crime,  and  the  criminals  have  started  on  "  the  primrose 
way  to  the  everlasting  bonfire."  Whether  this  symbolism  is 
coincidental  or  intentional,  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain,  but  it 
has  not  entirely  escaped  the  critics. 

Criticism  of  the  passage  ranges  from  condemnation  to  lauda- 
tion. A  glance  at  some  of  the  most  notable  commentaries  col- 
lected in  the  Furness  Variorum  edition  (pp.  109-110)  shows 
the  variety  of  opinion.  Capell  puts  the  scene  on  a  utilitarian 
basis,  stating  that  its  purpose  is  to  allow  time  for  Macbeth  to 
wash  his  hands  and  change  his  dress.  Coleridge,  excepting 
only  a  slight  touch,  and  the  Clarendon  editors,  in  toto,  pro- 
nounce the  episode  spurious.  Scholarly  opinion  to-day,  how- 
ever, with  comparative  unanimity,  reverses  the  decision.  Heraud 
styles  the  scene  an  admirable  transition,  while  Clarke  voices 
the  consensus  of  modern  thought :  "  Its  repulsively  coarse 
humor  serves  powerfully  to  contrast,  yet  harmonize,  with  the 
crime  that  has  been  perpetrated." 

The  Fantastic 
Unlike  the  drunkard  and  the  clown,  the  fantastic  lover  is  a 
sporadic  growth.     He  is  the  product  of  humanism  in  some  of 

"  Aulobiograpky,  p.  187. 


113 

its  eccentric  social  and  literary  aspects,  such  as  the  cults  of 
Ciceronian  eloquence  and  Platonic  gallantry.  Lovers  have 
soliloquized  in  the  literature  of  all  peoples  and  ages,  but  never 
with  the  rhetorical  fervor  of  the  renaissance  sonnet,  novella 
and  pastoral  comedy.  In  the  England  of  the  second  half  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  the  flourishing  of  the  Petrarchistic 
sonnet  and  the  Italian  novella  fostered  the  extravagantly 
romantic  soliloquy,  and  the  vogue  of  Euphuism  gave  it  its 
phraseology.  The  early  plays  of  Lyly  abound  in  extravagant 
and  Euphuistic  soliloquies  of  lovers.  For  example,  Phao's 
lament  in  "  Sapho  and  Phao"  (II,  4)  expresses  by  aid  of 
Euphuistis  similes,  ecstatic  revery  on  love  and  the  beloved, 
but  there  is  no  hint  that  the  soliloquizer  is  conscious  that  he  is 
fantastic.  Accordingly,  although  a  spirit  of  playfulness  per- 
vades his  diction,  his  soliloquy  must  be  classed  as  romantic 
rather  than  comic. 

Not  so  the  fantasts  of  "  Love's  Labors  Lost " :  they  rejoice  in 
their  whimsicality,  making  a  jest  of  seriousness,  and,  more- 
over, their  soliloquies  sound  a  note  of  sincerity  absent  in  Lyly. 
Don  Armado's  outburst  (I,  2,  172-191)  is  heated,  grandilo- 
quent and  playful,  his  word-play  including  technical  terms  of 
self-defense,  as  well  as  classical  and  Biblical  allusions.  The 
mock  heroic  apostrophes  of  his  peroration,  "  Adieu,  valor ! 
rust,  rapier !  be  still,  drum !  for  your  manager  is  in  love ;  yea, 
he  loveth," — are  paralleled  in  the  soliloquy  of  Frank  conclud- 
ing the  first  act  of  "  The  Fair  Maid  of  the  Exchange  "  (pr, 
1607):  "Therefore,  hat-band,  avaunt!  ruff,  regard  yourself! 
garters,  adieu  !  shoe-string — so  and  so  !  I  am  a  poor  enamorate 
and  enforced  with  the  poet  to  say,  love  overcomes  all,  and  I 
that  love  obey."  The  early  part  of  Frank's  soliloquy,  in  which 
he  inventories  his  lady's  defects  as  well  as  her  points  of 
beauty,  is  not  dissimilar  to  the  lament  of  Biron  (III,  i,  175- 
207),  who  whimsically  rails  not  only  against  Dan  Cupid  and 
woman  but  also  the  beauty  of  his  mistress, 

"  A  whitely  wanton  with  a  velvet  brow, 
With  two  pitch-balls  stuck  in  her  face  for  eyes." 

As  Biron's  speech  verges  on  a  parody  of  the  conventional 
soliloquy,  so  Petruchio's  soliloquies  are  comically  analogous  to 

9 


114 

those  of  the  plotting  villain.  Before  he  meets  his  Kate,  he 
carefully  plots  his  conversation  with  her  (II,  i,  169-182). 

"  Say  that  she  rail,  why  then  I'll  tell  her  plain 
She  sings  as  sweetly  as  a  nightingale," — 

thus  he  begins  to  lay  his  plans.  When  he  has  his  victim  in  his 
power,  with  villainous  glee  he  exults  over  the  tortures  he  has 
inflicted  on  her,  and  he  plots  future  deviltry  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  his  design  (IV,  i,  191-214).  Were  it  not  for 
the  underlying  spirit  of  farcical  exaggeration,  these  ponderings 
would  appear  as  diabolical  as  those  of  lago. 

It  is  only  a  step  from  the  fantastic  villain  and  the  fantastic 
lover  to  the  ancient  and  honorable  realm  of  mock  heroics. 
Aristophanes  opens  his  "  Ecclesiazusae  "  with  a  burlesque  solil- 
oquy by  Praxagora,  who,  in  mock  Euripidean  style,  apos- 
trophizes the  "  bright  eye  of  the  wheel- formed  lamp  "  hanging 
over  her  door.  Almost  as  conspicuous  a  travesty  is  the  lengthy 
lamentation  of  Chrysalus  in  the  "  Bacchides  "  of  Plautus  (IV, 
9),  After  stating  his  wish  to  lament,  the  soliloquizer  proceeds 
to  draw  absurdly  literal  comparisons  between  his  plight  and  the 
fall  of  Troy.  Nearly  every  age  has  its  famous  burlesque  solil- 
oquy. "  I  die,  fly,  fly,  my  soul,  to  Grocer's  Hall !"  wails  Ralph 
at  the  close  of  "  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle  "  (pr.  1613). 
Cries  the  protagonist  of  Scarron's  "  Jodelet"  (1645)  • 

"  Soyez  nettes,  mes  dents,  I'honneur  vous  le  commande, 
Perdre  les  dents  est  tout  le  mal  que  j'apprehende  "  (IV,  2). 

"O  Tilburina!"  sobs  the  Governor  of  Sheridan's  "Critic" 
(1779),  "  from  thy  aged  father's  beard,  thou  plucked  the  few 
brown  hairs  which  time  had  left"   (III,  i). 

From  Aristophanes  to  Sheridan,  the  apostrophe  is  a  favorite 
device  of  the  burlesque  soliloquy,  but  nowhere  as  in  Shake- 
speare is  its  absurdity  so  effectively  enhanced  by  frequent 
repetition.  The  soliloquies  of  the  play  within  the  play  of  "  A 
Midsummer-Night's  Dream  "  depend  largely  on  this  rhetorical 
trick.  Five  times  Pyramus  invokes  the  night  and  five  times  the 
wall  (V,  I,  170-182),  and  Thisbe  continues  the  salutations  to 
the  wall  (11.  190-193).    The  burlesque  by  Pyramus  of  the  con- 


115 

ventional  apostrophe  to  the  dead  includes  apostrophes  to  the 
moon  and  to  the  fates  and  furies,  as  well  as  to  the  deceased 
sweetheart  (11.  276-292).  The  soliloquy  continues,  a  parody  of 
the  suicide  speech  (11.  296-312),  with  apostrophes  to  tears, 
sword,  tongue  and  moon.  Again,  with  an  invocation  of  the 
dead  hero,  sisters  three,  lovers  and  friends,  tongue  and  sword, 
Thisbe  quits  this  bustling  scene  (11.  331-354)  for  all  eternity. 

Shakespeare's  immediate  predecessors  afford  him  ample 
opportunity  for  parody.  Farmer  cites  parallels  in  "  Dampn 
and  Pythias,"  and  Wright  in  "Appius  and  Virginia,"^^  for 
grandiose  references  to  the  furies  and  the  fateful  sisters,  while 
it  is  unnecessary  to  go  farther  than  Golding's  "  Ovid  "^^  for  the 
apostrophe  to  the  wall,  and  others  equally  inflated.  A  series 
of  apostrophes  introduced  by  "  O  " — the  mannerism  which 
Shakespeare  here  renders  so  ludicrous — is  a  contrivance  often 
used  by  the  Elizabethan  dramatist  for  the  purpose  of  dieting 
pity  and  terror.  Indeed,  in  "Romeo  and  Juliet"  (IV,  5,  49- 
54),  Shakespeare  seems  guilty  of  the  same  affectation,  but  he 
may  be  exonerated  on  the  grounds  that  the  lamentations  of 
the  Nurse  and  her  companions,  which  have  no  literal  signi- 
ficance for  the  audience,  are  serio-comic  rather  than  tragic. 

But  it  is  no  mere  rhetorical  trick  which  places  Pyramus  and 
Thisbe,  mock  hero  and  heroine,  in  the  forefront  of  fantastic 
and  burlesque  figures.  Each  reveals  his  amorous  condition 
by  a  maudlin  admiration  for  the  objects  of  nature,  each 
exhausts  the  stage  vocabulary  of  the  bereaved  lover,  and  each, 
with  an  exaggeration  of  the  requirements  of  the  suicide  solil- 
oquy,^'* doubly  redoubles  the  announcement  of  the  stabbing  and 
of  the  expiration : 

"  Thus  die  I,  thus,  thus,  thus. 
Now  am  I  dead, 
Now  am  I  fled  ; 
My  soul  is  in  the  sky. 

Tongue,  lose  thy  light ; 
Moon,  take  thy  flight. 
Now  die,  die,  die,  die,  die." 

^  Furness  Variorum  Edition,  p.  229,  note. 
^  See  ante,  p.  37. 
*°  See  ante,  pp.  79-81. 


116 

Pyramus  and  Thisbe  are  by  no  means  caricatures  of  Romeo 
and  Juliet.  Rather,  they  epitomize  theatrical  rant  and  senti- 
mentality in  a  manner  irresistibly  appealing  to  the  risibles,  and, 
in  addition,  their  staccato  meter  and  neat  rimes  tickle  the  audi- 
tory sense.  Even  while  laughing  uproariously,  one  may  con- 
sistently pause  to  observe,  "  This  is  the  silliest  stuff  that  ever 
I  heard." 

The  Cuckold 

The  worried  husband,  a  perennial  subject  for  jest  in  medi- 
eval fabliaux,  becomes  a  conspicuous  butt  in  the  sermons 
joycux  and  the  monologues  of  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  century 
France.  In  these  entertainments,  M.  Lintilhac  notes,  "  les 
fiances  et  maris  plus  ou  moins  anxieux,  et  pour  cause  "  consti- 
tute one  of  the  three  important  types  of  characters — types,  he 
observes,  which  reappear  in  French  farce. ^^ 

The  worried  husband  also  occurs  in  early  English  farce,  and 
his  soliloquies  are  sometimes  a  feature  of  the  performance. 
Thus  Johan's  long  monolog  beginning  Heywood's  "  mery  play 
betwene  Johan  Johan  the  husbande,  Tyb  his  wyfe,  and  Syr 
Jhan  the  preest "  (pr.  1533)  is  a  broadly  humorous  ponder- 
ing on  his  determination  to  beat  his  wife,  "  that  she  shall 
repent  to  go  a  catterwawlyng."  Likewise,  near  the  opening  of 
the  piece  called  "Tom  Tyler  and  his  Wife"  (1578  c),  the 
hero  gives  an  account  of  his  marital  infelicity.  Chapman's 
"All  Fools"  (1599  c.)  contains  the  ruminations  of  a  man  who 
prides  himself  on  mistrusting  his  wife  (II,  i). 

It  is  not  until  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century  that  the  solil- 
oquy of  the  cuckold  becomes  conventionalized.  The  term 
"  cuckold  "  is  used  advisedly,  not  to  indicate  the  man's  afflic- 
tion, as  his  troubles  are  often  imaginary,  but  because  the  word 
occurs  again  and  again  in  his  monologs,  together  with  some 
ill-natured  allusion  to  the  horns  on  his  forehead,  the  traditional 
emblem  of  his  suffering.  Until  the  closing  of  the  theatres,  this 
absurd  soliloquy  flourishes,  and  it  occasionally  reappears  in 
Restoration  comedy,  which  is  surcharged  with  the  theme  of 
cuckoldry.  It  is  difficult  for  the  modern  critic  to  find  any  mirth 
in  the  indecent  motif,  or  to  comprehend  the  prolonged  popu- 

''  La  Comedie  Moyen  Age  et  Renaissance,  p.  203. 


117 

larity  of  the  soliloquy,   which  gains   in  successive   treatment 
neither  novelty  nor  variety. 

Shakespeare's  use  of  the  device  is  no  better  and  no  worse 
than  that  of  his  contemporaries  and  successors,  albeit  there 
is  considerable  animation  in  Ford's  jealous  ragings.  "  Cuck- 
old!  Wittol!  Cuckold!  The  devil  himself  hath  not  such  a 
name,"  he  storms,  and  he  ends  the  soliloquy  by  thrice  repeat- 
ing the  opprobrious  epithet  (II,  2,  300-329).  Again  he  ex- 
citedly determines  on  vengeance,  concluding  with  the  inevitable 
reference  to  his  horns  (III,  5,  141-155). 

The  Rogue 

A  monologist  vastly  more  pleasing  to  modern  taste  is  the 
rogue  Autolycus.  Although  an  individual  creation,  he,  too, 
belongs  to  a  general  type.  The  rogue  of  Plautus  "  can  gleek 
upon  occasion."  Chrysalus  of  the  "  Bacchides "  (IV,  4) 
moralizes  in  this  fashion :  "  No  one  can  be  a  person  well  to  do, 
— unless  he  understands  both  how  to  do  good  and  how  to  do 
evil.  With  rogues  he  must  be  a  rogue;  with  thieves  let  him 
filch  whatever  he  can."  Pseudolus,  another  servant-rogue, 
philosophizes  cynically  on  the  success  of  his  wiles  and  strata- 
gems (II,  3).  The  parasite  of  Roman  comedy  is  a  somewhat 
different  kind  of  rogue,  whose  monologs  reveal  a  pride  in  his 
profession. 

The  soliloquies  of  Autolycus  may  be  remotely  dependent 
upon  classical  tradition,  tinged  with  the  flamboyant  spirit  of 
the  English  Vice ;  yet  from  the  moment  the  Shakespearean 
rogue  enters  with  a  gay  song  on  his  lips  ("The  Winter's 
Tale,"  IV,  3,  1-22)  to  his  departure  as  he  exults  in  the  kindli- 
ness of  Fortune  (IV,  4,  861-873),  his  exuberant  personality 
seems  quite  independent  of  tradition.  "My  traffic  is  sheets:" 
with  naive  frankness  he  announces  to  the  audience  his  name 
and  occupation  (IV,  3,  23-32).  "Ha,  ha!  what  a  fool 
Honesty  is !"  he  laughs,  but  moralizing  is  foreign  to  his  mood, 
and  he  gleefully  proceeds  to  recount  the  successful  prosecu- 
tion of  his  trade  (IV,  4,  605-630).  With  the  zeal  of  a  special- 
ist, he  is  engrossed  in  his  vocation,  and,  when  left  alone  for  a 
moment,  he  cannot  forbear  a  word  as  to  the  manifold  requisites 


118 

of  the  cut-purse  (IV,  4,  683-687).  "This  is  the  time  that  the 
unjust  man  doth  thrive,"  he  exclaims  rejoicing;  "  sure  the  gods 
do  this  year  connive  at  us,  and  we  may  do  anything  extem- 
pore "  (IV,  4,  687-692).  Again  he  gives  vent  to  the  same  con- 
viction: "  If  I  had  a  mind  to  be  honest,  I  see  Fortune  would 
not  suffer  me"  (IV,  4,  861-862).  Hoping  to  help  his  royal 
master  as  well  as  himself,  this  prince  of  rogues  boasts,  "  Let 
him  call  me  rogue  for  being  so  far  officious :  for  I  am  proof 
against  that  title  and  what  shame  else  belongs  to't "  (IV,  4, 
869-871). 

Autolycus  is  entitled  to  a  prominent  place  in  the  rogue's 
gallery  of  literature,  chiefly  because  of  the  monologs  which 
deftly  indicate  his  care-free  disposition.  Comprehending  and 
transcending  the  petty  details  of  his  traffic,  his  abundant  de- 
light in  his  knavery  expresses  itself  in  a  genial  trust  in  the 
unknown  forces  guiding  his  destiny.  The  fact  that  we  may 
introduce  a  theological  conception  in  our  discussion  of  this 
theatrical  rascal  shows  how  far  he  is  removed  from  the  clowns 
of  Shakespeare's  early  period.  In  his  soliloquies,  Autolycus 
reveals  himself,  saving  your  reverence,  something  of  a  picares- 
que evangelist. 

The  Braggart 

The  braggart  is  another  type  with  antecedents  in  Roman 
comedy,  but  the  miles  gloriosus  does  not  attain  distinction  as  a 
monologist  until  the  fifteenth  century.  From  then  on,  the 
soldat  fanfaron  is  a  conspicuous  monologist  in  France,^^  a 
genre  which  includes  the  celebrated  "  Franc-archer  de  Bag- 
nolet"  (1468  c). 

In  England,  John  Skelton's  morality,  "  Magnificence,"  of  the 
early  sixteenth  century,  contains  a  lengthy  monolog  in  which 
Magnificence  compares  himself  with  a  catalog  of  the  great, 
including  Alexander,  Charlemagne,  Arthur  and  a  host  of 
others  f^  but  it  is  "  Thersites,"  translated  from  neo-Latin  about 
1537,  which  exalts  the  monolog  of  the  boaster.  The  protagonist 
has  six  long  speeches,  addressed  to  the  audience,  occasionally 

'^ "  Le  monologue  dramatique  dans  I'ancien  theatre  francais,"  by  fimile 
Picot,  Romania,  Vol.  XVI,  pp.  518-533. 

^^  Poetical  Works,  edited  by  Alexander  Dyce,  Vol.  I,  p.  27^. 


119 

indulging  in  a  coarse  jest  for  their  benefit,  but  animated 
by  the  omnipresent  theme,  self-glorification.  Again,  in 
"  Soliman  and  Perseda "  (S.  R.  1592),  the  vain-glorious 
knight  Basilisco  indulges  in  several  soliloquies  disclosing  his 
ruling  passion. 

Beside  the  extravagant  declaration  of  valor  made  by  Ther- 
sites  and  Basilisco,  the  little  speech  of  Parolles  in  "  All's 
Well"  (II,  3,  249-256)  seems  puny  and  insignificant.  A  more 
fitting  comparison  is  afforded  by  the  opening  of  "Johan 
Johan,"  to  which  reference  has  already  been  made.  Johan 
asserts  and  reasserts  his  intention  to  beat  his  wife,  but  when 
that  lady  appears  with  the  query,  "  Why,  whom  wylt  thou 
beate,  I  say,  thou  knave?"  his  determination  quickly  vanishes. 
The  same  situation  occurs  in  "  All's  Well."  "  I'll  beat  him," 
declares  the  soliloquizing  Parolles,  "by  my  life,  if  I  can  meet 
him  with  any  convenience,  an  he  were  double  and  double  a 
lord.  I'll  have  no  more  pity  of  his  age  than  I  would  have  of — 
I'll  beat,  him,  an  if  I  could  but  meet  him  again."  Thereupon 
the  object  of  his  wrath  enters,  and  the  courage  of  the  braggart 
oozes  away.  In  a  later  soliloquy  he  fully  admits  his  cowardice : 
"  I  find  my  tongue  is  too  fool-hardy ;  but  my  heart  hath  the 
fear  of  Mars  before  it  and  of  his  creatures,  not  daring  the 
reports  of  my  tongue  "  (IV,  i,  31-34). 

In  connection  with  the  soliloquizer  who  is  amusing  because 
of  his  cowardice,  Falstaff  might  be  considered,  and  we  shall 
presently  contrast  his  famous  observations  on  honor  with 
those  of  many  a  stage  braggart,  showing  the  gulf  separating  the 
Skakespearean  creation  from  the  stock  figure. 

The  Cynic 

But  first  let  us  turn  our  attention  to  another  comic  mono- 
logist,  the  cynic.  He  can  scarcely  be  termed  a  stock  figure, 
for  the  degree  of  his  cynicism  and  his  mode  of  expression  are 
variable  quantities.  Cynical  monologs  are  frequent  in  Roman 
comedy,  often  the  utterance  of  the  parasite, — but  they  are 
sporadic  rather  than  classifiable.  Peniculus,  opening  the 
"  Menaechmi "  of  Plautus,  whimsically  moralizes  on  the  power 
of  food,  while  Charinus,  in  the  "  Andria"  of  Terence  (IV,  i), 


120 

states  his  conviction  as  to  the  irresponsibihty  of  a  class  of  men 
in  regard  to  promises  and  fulfilment. 

The  parasite  of  "Damon  and  Pythias"  (c.  1563)  gives  vent 
to  some  sarcastic  moralizing^*  and  comment. ^^  The  philoso- 
phizing of  the  late  moralities  occasionally  acquires  an  equally 
pessimistic  tone, — for  example,  Liberality's  observations  on  the 
injustices  of  life,  in  "The  Contention  between  Liberality  and 
Prodigality"  (c.  1600).^®  In  a  more  bitterly  ironical  vein,  old 
Knowell  of  Jonson's  "Every  Man  in  His  Humor"  (c.  1598) 
(H,  3)  comments  on  the  degeneracy  of  the  times,  while 
Marston,  Chapman,  Middleton  and  their  followers  afford  many 
another  illustration  of  cynical  soliloquizing.  Indeed,  with  the 
lowering  of  the  ethical  standards  of  the  stage,  cynicism 
increases.  Before  the  closing  of  the  theatres,  the  frailty  of 
woman  is  a  favorite  theme  for  the  comic  monolog,  one  which 
grows  in  popularity  and  pruriency  in  the  hands  of  Dry  den 
and  his  fellows.  A  foretaste  of  such  pseudo-moralizing  on 
sex  is  found  in  the  misanthropic  observations  of  the  Shepherd 
of  "The  Winter's  Tale"  (III,  3,  59-79). 

The  notable  Shakespearean  cynic  is  Thersites  of  "  Troilus 
and  Cressida,"  although  "  cynic "  seems  almost  too  mild  an 
epithet  to  apply  to  this  snarling  railer,  foul-mouthed  and 
bitter.  His  monologs  form  a  succession  of  vehement  denun- 
ciations of  his  companions.  "  Lost  in  the  labyrinth  of  his 
fury,"  he  rails  at  Ajax  and  Achilles,  invoking  Jupiter  and 
Mercury  in  a  sardonic  prayer  (II,  3,  1-23).  In  a  vulgar  exit 
speech,  he  again  pays  his  compliments  to  Achilles  (III,  3,  313- 
316).  Next  he  rails  against  Menelaus  with  splenetic  zeal, 
incidentally  paying  his  respects  to  Agamemnon,  Achilles  and 
Patroclus  (V,  i,  53-73).  Diomedes  then  becomes  the  sport  of 
his  wrath  (V,  i,  95-106).  "I  will  no  more  trust  him  when 
he  leers  than  I  will  a  serpent  when  he  hisses :"  the  downright 
and  violent  assertion  of  his  dislike  has  a  touch  of  the  humor  of 
Hotspur's  anger.  Particularly  is  the  similarity  felt  in  the  grim 
indirection  of  the  jesting  of  Thersites:  "He  will   spend  his 

^*  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol,  IV,  pp.  23,  32. 

^''U.  s.,  p.  41. 

«« Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  343. 


121 

mouth,  and  promise,  like  Brabbler  the  hound ;  but  when  he  per- 
forms, astronomers  foretell  it."  The  final  soliloquy  consti- 
tutes a  climactic  burst  of  invective  against  Diomedes,  Troilus, 
Cressida,  "  that  stale  old  mouse-eaten  dry  cheese,  Nestor,  and 
that  same  dog-fox,  Ulysses,"  "that  mongrel-cur,  Ajax,"  and 
"  that  dog  of  as  bad  a  kind,  Achilles."  The  railings  of  Ther- 
sites  are  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the  soliloquy.  Because 
of  their  mood,  they  are  most  nearly  akin  to  other  cynical  mono- 
logs  ;  but  their  trenchancy,  extravagance  and  truculence  render 
them  unique.  Doubtless  they  v^ere  very  amusing  to  the  audi- 
ence of  their  time,  but  to-day  their  comic  effect  is  blurred  by 
their  scurrility. 

The  Analysts 
The  meditations  of  Faulconbridge  in  "  King  John "  are 
tinged  with  cynicism,  but  the  comic  spirit  animating  them 
seems  more  closely  related  to  the  soliloquies  of  Falstaff, 
Benedick  and  Malvolio  than  to  the  railings  of  Thersites. 
Manifestly,  however,  it  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  of  tem- 
perament and  ideas  differing  more  widely  than  those  of  Fal- 
staff, Benedick  and  Faulconbridge.  What  is  the  trait  uniting 
these  soliloquizers?  They  analyze  the  subject  under  considera- 
tion. Not  attempting  the  introspective  depths  of  Hamlet,  they 
nevertheless  ponder  and  philosophize.^'^  The  clown,  the  drunk- 
ard, the  fantastic,  the  cuckold,  the  rogue  and  the  braggart 
have  monologs  more  or  less  stereotyped,  so  far  as  thought  is 
concerned,  while  the  railings  of  the  cynic  are  equally  wanting 
in  profundity ;  but  the  analytical  quality  distinguishes  and 
unites  the  greatest  comic  soliloquies  of  Shakespeare.  More- 
over, it  is  this  very  element  which  is  the  source  of  the  fun, 
producing,  to  borrow  the  late  Mr.  Meredith's  phrase,  "  thought- 
ful laughter." 

Faulconbridge 
"  New-made  honor  doth   forget  men's  names :"  this  is  the 
kind  of  thesis  which  incites  the  caustic  dissertations  of  Faul- 
conbridge's  first  soliloquy   (I,   i,   182-219).     His  biting  com- 

"  The  famous  ruminations  of  Jaques  (As  You  Like  It,  II,  7,  12-34,  139- 
166)  are  presented  as  parts  of  conversations,  and  accordingly  they  cannot 
be  regarded  as  soliloquies. 


122 

mentary  on  the  small  talk  of  "  worshipful  society "  has  a 
theme  not  dissimilar  to  the  complaint  of  the  parasite  Gelasimus 
in  the  "Stichus"  of  Plautus  (II,  i),  but  the  satiric  shafts  of 
Gelasimus  are  aimed  at  one  aspect  of  the  emptiness  of  polite 
conversation,  the  invitation  to  dinner.  Faulconbridge's  parody 
of  lordly  table  talk,  however,  is  thoroughly  English  in  its 
humor.  Although  totally  dissimilar  in  subject  matter,  it  re- 
minds one  of  the  soliloquies  of  the  shepherds  opening  the 
Towneley  miracle,  "  Secunda  Pastorum."  The  ponderings  of 
the  three  shepherds,  saturated  with  pessimism,  seem  buoyed  up 
by  an  undercurrent  of  good  nature.  Likewise,  the  debonair 
merriment  of  Faulconbridge,  while  it  does  not  dull  the  edge  of 
the  satire,  gives  the  speech  a  genial  tone  characteristically 
British.  True,  his  soliloquy  is  not  analytical  in  a  scientific 
sense,  but  its  ludicrous  exposure  of  social  foibles  shows  a  keen 
and  searching  observation. 

"  In  his  first  soliloquy  he  looks  jestingly  upon  his  new 
dignity,"  remarks  Dr.  Gervinus  f^  "  his  merriment  is  changed 
to  bitter  irony  in  the  second  soliloquy  (II,  i,  561-598)  after 
the  sad  experience  of  the  French  breach  of  faith  with  Con- 
stance." Here  "  commodity,"  in  the  sense  of  "  profit "  or 
"advantage,"  is  the  object  of  his  ire: 

"  That  smooth-faced  gentleman,  tickling  Commodity, 
Commodity,  the  bias  of  the  world." 

He  is  not  content,  like  Thersites,  to  vent  his  spleen  in  oppro- 
brius  epithets,  but  he  weighs  and  dissects  the  significance 
of  the  word,  finally  giving  up  the  problem,  with  the  ironical 
conclusion : 

"  Well,  whiles  I  am  a  beggar,  I  will  rail 
And  say  there  is  no  sin  but  to  be  rich ; 
And  being  rich,  my  virtue  then  shall  be 
To  say  there  is  no  vice  but  beggary." 

The  whole  soliloquy  is  a  masterly  revelation  of  the  workings 
of  the  speaker's  mind,  and,  harassed  though  he  is,  an  important 
indication  of  his  acumen.  Fascinating  throughout  the  drama, 
his  sturdy  personality  seems  more  intimately  disclosed  in 
^  Shakespeare  Commentaries,  translated  by  F.  E.  Bunnett,  p.  367. 


123 

monolog  than  in  dialog — an  indubitable  fact  in  the  case  of 
Falstaff,  whose  sohloquies  emphatically  set  forth  his  ideas  and 
feelings  without  the  intervening  veil  of  irony. 

Falstaff 
As  Faulconbridge  may  be  regarded  as  an  outgrowth  of  the 
cynic,  so  Falstaff  appears  to  be  the  outgrowth  of  the  cowardly 
braggart.  His  series  of  soliloquies  on  honor,  among  the  most 
celebrated  in  the  history  of  comedy,  have  some  interesting 
forerunners  and  successors.  Following  a  murder  in  "  Soliman 
and  Perseda,"  the  vain-glorious  knight  Basilisco  ruminates 
fearfully  on  death,  and  decides  to  run  away.^®  Again,  Nobbs 
in  "  Jack  Straw,"  while  pondering  on  the  fate  of  the  rebels, 
touches  the  honor  theme : 

"  'Tis  dishonor  for  such  as  they  to  die  in  their  bed, 
And  credit  to  caper  under  the  gallows,  all  save  the  head."*" 

Cowardice  is  often  the  motif  of  the  comic  monolog.  Ambi- 
dexter of  "  Cambises,"  for  example,  explains  his  running 
away  from  the  fight  on  the  grounds  of  prudence:  "It  is  wis- 
dome,  quoth  I,  by  the  masse,  to  save  one!"*^ 

At  best,  however,  these  are  feeble  preludes  to  Falstafif's 
disquisition,  but  after  it  occurs,  its  matter  and  manner  often 
re-appear.  The  protagonist  of  Dekker's  "  Old  Fortunatus " 
(pr,  1600)  uses  the  catechism  method  peculiar  to  Falstaff's 
logic,  care  being  the  theme  instead  of  honor.  "  Where  dwells 
Care?  In  princes'  courts?  No.  Among  fair  ladies? 
Neither, — "  and  so  the  eliminative  process  continues  (I,  i). 
In  "  A  King  and  No  King  "  (1611)  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher, 
there  is  a  series  of  three  soliloquies  (III,  2)  by  Bessus  which 
are  somewhat  reminiscent  of  Falstaff.  Bessus  confesses  that 
his  reputation  for  military  prowess  was  occasioned  by  his  run- 
ning away.  "  If  I  might  stand  still  in  cannon-proof,"  he  asserts 
with  Falstaffian  humor,  "  and  have  fame  fall  upon  me,  I  would 
refuse  it." 

The  comic  monolog  on  honor  occurs  rather  frequently  in 

«='  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  V,  p.  363- 
♦»  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  V,  p.  383. 
*i  Manly,  Vol.  II,  p.  173- 


124 

the  continental  drama  of  the  seventeenth  century,  possibly  a 
reflex  of  the  serious  soliloquy  on  the  same  subject  which 
flourishes  in  Calderon.  Calderon  is  fond  of  the  comic  coward. 
In  his  "  Puente  de  Mantible,"  Guarin,  a  trickster  and  boaster 
as  well  as  a  cowardly  soldier,  announces  in  monolog  (I,  3)  that 
he  has  forged  his  name  on  an  officer's  papers  in  order  to  gain 
his  military  rank.  The  gracioso  of  *' La  Hija  del  Aire"  is  a 
coward  who  has  a  soliloquy  on  honor,  beginning,  "  Now  we  are 
alone,  honor"  (I,  11)  ;  and  Brito  of  "El  Principe  Constante  " 
reveals  his  fear  in  a  brief  monolog  (I,  14)  during  which  he  lies 
on  the  ground,  shamming  death.  Scarron's  Jodelet,  solilo- 
quizing, concludes  with  Falstaff's  point  of  view,  "  qu'etre 
homme  d'honneur  est  une  sotte  chose  "  ("  Le  Jodelet  Duelliste," 
III,  i).  Moliere's  soliloquy  on  honor  in  "  Sganarelle  "  (sc.  17) 
is  worthy  of  its  renown.  In  one  of  the  longest  soliloquies 
Moliere  wrote,  Sganarelle  discusses  the  honor  of  the  deceived 
husband.  At  first  on  fire  to  avenge  his  wrong,  physical  terror 
soon  persuades  him  that  he  prefers  to  be  a  live  coward  rather 
than  a  dead  hero,  a  determination  which  he  states  in  so  many 
words.  Likewise,  Mascarille  of  the  "  Depit  Amoureux  "  (V, 
i)  affirms  his  preference  for  this  world  rather  than  the  next, — 
the  only  other  instance  in  Moliere  of  fear  as  the  theme  of  a 
comic  monolog,  and  this  an  abridgment  of  its  Italian  source, 
"  L'Interesse  "  (I,  4). 

It  is  noteworthy  that  nearly  all  of  the  predecessors  and  suc- 
cessors of  Falstaff,  both  in  England  and  on  the  continent,  de- 
pend upon  the  fear  of  the  speaker  to  incite  the  laughter  of  the 
audience.  Falstaff  himself  is  the  exception  to  the  rule.  Not 
fear,  but  prudence,  is  the  mainspring  of  comedy  in  his  solilo- 
quies on  honor.  True,  stage  tradition  has  done  its  best  to 
render  him  the  conventional  coward.  At  the  time  of  the 
restoration,  Thomas  Fuller  referred  to  him  as  "  a  thrasonical 
Puff  and  emblem  of  Mock-valour,"*-  a  characterization  which 
is  not  corroborated  by  a  study  of  the  soliloquies. 

In  the  masterly  "  Essay  on  the  Dramatic  Character  of  Sir 
John  Falstaff"  (1777),  Maurice  Morgann  has  vindicated  Fal- 
staff's  courage  for  all  time,  chiefly  by  citation  from  his  solilo- 

^-  The  Worthies  of  England,  edited  by  Nicholas,  Vol.  II,  p.  131. 


125 

quies.  "  I  have  led  my  ragamuffins  where  they  are  pepper'd. 
There's  not  three  of  my  hundred  and  fifty  left  alive,"  an- 
nounces Falstaff  solus  ("  The  First  Part  of  Henry  the  Fourth," 
V,  3,  35-38).  "To  whom  does  he  say  this?"  demands  Mor- 
gann.*^  "To  himself  only;  he  speaks  in  soliloquy.  There  is 
no  questioning  the  fact,  he  led  them  ;  they  zvere  peppered;  there 
were  not  three  left  alive."  The  critic  concedes,  on  second 
thought,  that  FalstafY's  "  modes  of  expression,  even  in  solilo- 
quy, will  admit  of  some  abatement,"  in  regard  to  the  precise 
number  who  survived ;  but,  in  general,  the  position  is  well  taken 
that  the  soliloquy  has  the  ring  of  sincerity.  As  to  Falstaff's 
notions  of  honor,  Morgann  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
"these  passages  are  spoken  in  soliloquy  and  in  battle:  If  every 
soliloquy  made  under  similar  circumstances  were  as  audible  as 
Falstaff's,  the  imputation  might  be  found  too  general  for  cen- 
sure."** Herein  lies  the  secret  of  the  universal  appeal  of  the 
soliloquies.  "  Falstafif  was  a  kind  of  military  free-thinker," 
concludes  his  apologist.*^  "  He  stands  upon  the  ground  of 
natural  courage  only  and  common  sense,  and  has,  it  seems,  too 
much  wit  for  a  hero." 

Morgann's  commentary  is  the  key  to  Falstafif's  soliloquies  on 
honor.  It  is  the  naturalism  of  his  emotions  and  the  logic  of 
his  "  free-thinking,"  as  well  as  his  witty  manner  of  express- 
ing himself,  which  startle  his  audience  into  thoughtful  laughter. 
"Honor  pricks  me  on,"  he  asserts  (V,  i,  127-143) — surely  the 
utterance  of  a  valorous  spirit.  "Yea,  but  how  if  honor  prick 
me  ofif  ?  "  Here  his  analytical  mind  seizes  the  problem.  "  Can 
honor  set  to  a  leg?"  His  wit  conducts  the  catechism.  The 
point  of  view  may  be  materialistic,  but,  granting  the  premises, 
the  conclusion  is  inevitable :  "  Honor  is  a  mere  scutcheon." 
Falstaff  is  shocked  by  the  concrete  example  of  his  abstract 
theorizing,  when  he  comes  upon  the  corpse  of  Sir  Walter 
Blunt.  "There's  honor  for  you,"  he  exclaims  (V,  3,  32),  and 
again,  "  I  like  not  such  grinning  honor  as  Sir  Walter  hath  " 

^Eighteenth  Century  Essays  on  Shakespeare,  edited  by  D.  Nichol  Smith, 
p.  262. 

**  U.  s.,  p.  264. 
*^  U.  s.,  p.  264. 


126 

(V,  3j  *^3)-  The  theme  is  resumed  from  a  deeply  personal 
standpoint  (V,  4,  111-131).  The  Prince  having  departed 
after  pronouncing  a  brief  valediction  over  his  fat  comrade's 
body,  that  gentleman  springs  up,  enraged  and  terrorized.  This 
is  not  the  fear  of  a  weakling,  but  rather  the  instinctive  dread 
of  death  found  in  every  creature  capable  of  feeling.  Falstaflf's 
sense  of  humor  does  not  desert  him,  although  his  jesting  is  in 
deadly  earnest  when  he  affirms,  "  To  die  is  to  be  a  counterfeit," 
a  conviction  which  he  translates  into  the  proverb,  "  The  better 
part  of  valor  is  discretion."  In  the  presence  of  "  this  gun- 
powder Percy,"  cunning,  as  well  as  fear,  lays  hold  of  Fal- 
staff's  mood.  Repulsive  and  ghastly,  the  stabbing  terminates 
the  scene,  a  grotesquely  fitting  culmination  of  the  series  of 
soliloquies  on  honor.  The  episode  must  have  wrought  its 
audience  well-nigh  to  the  point  of  hysteria;  and,  if  this  is  not 
deemed  compensation  for  its  barbarity,  let  it  be  remembered 
that  the  corpse  had  to  be  removed  in  some  way,  and  that  at 
least  this  has  the  merit  of  being  a  theatrical  method. 

Next  to  the  honor  soliloquies,  those  on  Justice  Shallow  are 
most  famous.  The  celebrated  description  of  the  Justice,  in 
which  he  is  likened  to  a  "  forked  radish  "  and  other  delightful 
similes  (Part  II,  III,  2,  323-357),  depends  incidentally  on  its 
word-painting  and  word-play  for  amusement,  and  funda- 
mentally on  the  humorous  contrast  in  temperament  and  physi- 
que between  the  narrator  and  the  hero  of  the  narrative.  Again 
the  fat  knight  makes  merry  at  the  expense  of  the  lean  squire 
in  the  speech  beginning,  "  If  I  were  saw'd  into  quantities,  I 
should  make  four  dozen  of  such  bearded  hermits'  staves  as 
Master  Shallow"  (Part  II,  V,  i,  69-95).  He  proceeds  to 
analyze  "  the  semblable  coherence  of  his  men's  spirits  and  his," 
and  he  concludes  with  one  of  those  vivid  comparisons  indica- 
tive of  his  exuberant  spirits,  "  O  you  shall  see  him  laugh  till  his 
face  be  like  a  wet  cloak  ill  laid  up." 

The  contemptuous  attitude  of  the  big  toward  the  small  and 
of  vigor  toward  pusillanimity  is  an  essentially  comic  relation,  as 
evidenced  by  Falstaff's  account  of  Shallow  and  by  Hotspur's 
caustic  description  of  the  foppish  envoy  (Part  I,  I,  3,  29-69). 
Falstaff's  adverse  comment  of  young  Lancaster  is  not  quite  so 


127 

happy,  although  thoroughly  characteristic  (Part  II,  IV,  3,  92- 
102)  ;  but  it  is  merged  into  the  renowned  dissertation  on  the 
merits  of  "  a  good  sherris-sack,"  which,  in  its  orderly  account 
of  the  physical  and  psychological  benefits  resulting  from  the 
stimulant,  is  a  sort  of  sermon  joycux  on  the  text,  "O  God, 
that  men  should  put  an  enemy  in  their  mouths  to  steal  away 
their  brains ! " 

The  remaining  soliloquies  of  Falstaff  are  of  comparative 
insignificance.  Two  sprightly  exit  speeches  (Part  I,  III,  3, 
229-230;  Part  II,  I,  2,  272-278),  and  a  scurrilous  link  which 
has  the  sole  merit  of  being  consistent  with  the  mood  of  the 
monologist  (Part  II,  I,  2,  255-260)  complete  the  list  of  Fal- 
staff 's  soliloquies  in  "  Henry  the  Fourth."  Those  in  "  The 
Merry  Wives  "  are  on  a  lower  plain  of  humor.  They  include 
three  links  quite  lacking  in  distinction,*"  a  mildly  amusing  ac- 
count of  Falstaff's  escapade  in  the  Thames  (III,  5,  4-18), 
and  a  pseudo-comic  lament  containing,  presumably,  a  local 
reference  to  the  courtly  audience  at  Windsor:  "If  it  should 
come  to  the  ear  of  the  court,  how  I  have  been  transformed  and 
how  my  transformation  hath  been  wash'd  and  cudgell'd,  they 
would  melt  me  out  of  my  fat  drop  by  drop,  and  liquor  fisher- 
men's boots  with  me"  (IV,  5,  95-105).  The  oil  in  Falstaff, 
almost  as  inexhaustible  as  the  widow's  oil,  recurs  as  the  subject 
of  another  monologic  jest  (V,  5,  38-40).  The  most  conspicu- 
ous soliloquy  in  the  piece  is  the  one  beginning,  "  The  Windsor 
bell  hath  struck  twelve"  (V,  5,  1-16).  Here,  if  tradition  is 
authentic,  is  the  realization  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  wish :  Falstaflf 
is  in  love.  The  grandiose  expression  of  his  amorous  desire  is 
very  close  to  a  burlesque  of  those  perfervid  soliloquies  of  the 
times  anticipating  the  gratification  of  passion. 

So  transitory  is  the  effect  of  the  monologs  in  "  The  Merry 
Wives"  that,  whenever  reference  is  made  to  the  soliloquies  of 
Falstaff,  it  is  invariably  to  the  immortal  ones  in  "  Henry  the 
Fourth."  There  the  true  Falstaff,  philosopher  and  wit, 
analyzes  and  marshals  his  ideas.  Whether  his  theme  is  sherris. 
Shallow  or  honor,  the  analytical  process  is  evident.  Falstaff 
is  never  in  doubt,  however.     His  opinions  are  fixed,  dogmatic, 

**il,  2,  143-149,  156-159;  III,  5,  58-60. 


128 

argumentative  and  humorously  sequential.  These  qualities  are 
laughably  apparent  in  the  soliloquy  in  which  honor  is  prac- 
tically annihilated  by  a  pseudo-Socratic  method  of  interroga- 
tion. The  question-and-answer  device  with  which  Falcon- 
bridge  epitomizes  social  chit  chat  (I,  i,  193-204)  also  serves  to 
relieve  the  monotony  of  the  monolog,  but  it  contains  no  sug- 
gestion of  Falstaffian  ratiocination. 

Launcelot  Gobbo 
It  remains  for  Launcelot  Gobbo,  clown  though  he  is,  to  com- 
bine in  soliloquy  (II,  2,  1-33)  the  quick  interchange  of  con- 
versation with  the  psychological  attitude  of  uncertainty.  His 
conscience  and  the  fiend  personify  the  opposing  forces  warring 
within  him.  To  be  sure,  the  subject  of  his  anxiety  and  his 
absurd  rumination  thereon  are  not  calculated  to  give  the  effect 
of  serious  introspection.  Dr.  Kilian  condemns  the  "  purely 
theatrical "  handling  of  the  speech,  observing  that  the  element 
of  dialog  can  be  happily  adapted  to  monolog,  as  Lessing  has 
shown.*'^  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  conversational  method 
is  capable  of  tragic  as  well  as  comic  effects  in  soliloquy.*^ 
Launcelot  is  mock  serious.  "  '  Budge,'  says  the  fiend.  '  Budge 
not,'  says  my  conscience " :  his  remarks  border  on  the  bur- 
lesque of  those  soliloquies  of  all  ages  which  depict  the  crisis 
"where  duty  and  inclination  come  nobly  to  the  grapple." 
"The  Rehearsal"  (1671)  of  Villers  and  his  companions  con- 
tains a  well-known  parody  of  the  love-versus-honor  soliloquy 
in  vogue  at  the  time:  Volscious,  alone  with  one  boot  on,  the 
other  off,  is  torn  by  conflicting  impulses : 

"  Honor,   aloud,   commands,   pluck   both   boots   on ; 
But  softer  Love  does  whisper,  put  on  none"  (III,  2). 

Launcelot's  monolog  is  not  so  obvious  a  parody,  but  it  is  "  the- 
atrical," as  Dr.  Kilian  says.  In  fact,  although  Launcelot  is  a 
clown  rather  than  an  analyst,  his  histrionic,  serio-comic  ponder- 
ing anticipates  the  solemn  weighing  of  the  pro's  and  con's  of  a 
question  by  Malvolio  and  Benedick. 

"  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  Vol.  XXXIX,  p.  38. 
**  See  ante,  p.  102. 


129 

Malvolio 

Malvolio's  soliloquy  (II,  5,  2^  ff.)  begins  with  some  exalted 
imaginings  of  his  future  state,  but  his  analytical  frame  of  mind 
is  evidenced  by  his  deliberate  examination  of  the  superscription 
of  the  letter  and  by  his  painstaking  consideration  of  the  "  M, 
O,  A,  I."  " '  M,  O,  A,  I,  doth  sway  my  life.'  Nay,  but  first, 
let  me  see,  let  me  see,  let  me  see  " :  his  cautious  ruminations 
are  comic  in  themselves,  and  the  fun  grows  uproarious  in  the 
comments  and  rejoinders  of  the  eaves-droppers.  The  situa- 
tion, made  possible  by  the  convention  of  the  overheard  solilo- 
quy,*® is  largely  responsible  for  the  hilarity  of  the  occasion; 
but,  after  all,  Malvolio's  ponderous  weighing  of  the  evidence  is 
the  pivot  about  which  the  merry  by-plot  revolves.  His  very 
deliberation  creates,  as  it  were,  an  atmosphere  of  comic 
suspense,  and  his  smug  conclusion,  after  reading  the  letter, 
gives  the  finishing  touch  of  joyous  anticipation. 

His  next  soliloquy  (III,  4,  71-91)  shows  him  enmeshed  in 
the  plot,  the  amusement  culminating  in  his  pondering  on 
Olivia's  words  and  finding  in  them  a  deeply  amorous  signi- 
ficance. Exactly  the  same  device  is  used  in  Benedick's  solilo- 
quy (Much  Ado,"  II,  3,  266-273).^*'  Indeed,  Shakespeare  re- 
peats himself  in  the  use  of  the  comic  monologs  by  these  two 
characters :  both  soliloquizers  are  revealed  the  dupes  of  eaves- 
dropping conspirators,  and  both  appear  absurd  coxcombs  in 
their  infatuation. 

Benedick 
Benedick  is  much  more  elaborately  and  sympathetically  de- 
picted than  Malvolio,  but  nevertheless  the  audience  is  inclined 
to  laugh  at  him  rather  than  with  him.  He  is  the  outgrowth  of 
such  fantastic  soliloquizers  as  Biron  of  "  Love's  Labor's 
Lost " ;  and  Benedick's  railings  against  love  have  remote  proto- 
types in  the  French  monologues  by  lovers  and  in  the  sermons 
joyenx  on  love,  women  and  marriage, ^^  as  well  as  in  occasional 
soliloquies  of  Roman  comedy.     The  "  Trinummus  "  of  Plautus 

*^  See  ante,  p.  93. 

^"  Cf.  also  All's  Well,  IV,  i,  27-69;  see  ante,  p.  119. 

"  Romania,  Vol.  XV,  p.  362. 

10 


130 

contains  a  lengthy  rumination  by  Lysiteles  (II,  i),  in  which  the 
problem  of  love-versus-aggrandisement  is  carefully  and  some- 
what humorously  weighed.  Love  is  characterized  as  "  a  fawn- 
ing flatterer,  a  rapacious  grappler,  a  deceiver,  a  sweet-tooth,  a 
spoiler,  a  corrupter  of  men  who  court  retirement,"  and  the 
like, — an  attitude  more  violent  then  Benedick's,  but  somewhat 
analogous  to  his  feelings  before  he  becomes  enthralled. 

Soliloquy  (II,  3,  7-39)  discloses  his  point  of  view  at  the 
outset :  he  marvels  "  that  one  man,  seeing  how  much  another 
is  a  fool  when  he  dedicates  his  behaviors  to  love,  will,  after 
he  has  laughed  at  such  shallow  follies  in  others,  become  the 
argument  of  his  own  scorn  by  falling  in  love."  After  consid- 
ering the  woful  plight  of  Claudio,  he  turns  his  attention  to 
himself :  may  he  be  so  converted?  He  thinks  not.  His  super- 
cilious arrogance,  as  he  approaches  the  pitfall,  adds  amusement 
as  well  as  interest  to  his  cogitations.  Pondering  on  his  ada- 
mantine invulnerability  to  feminine  charms,  he  is  tricked  into 
cataloging  the  graces  of  the  paragon  whom  he  might  conde- 
scend to  wed.  Rich,  wise,  virtuous,  fair,  noble,  of  good  dis- 
course, an  excellent  musician, — so  run  his  requirements,  but 
he  graciously  leaves  one  detail  to  providence :  "  and  her  hair 
shall  be  of  what  color  it  please  God."  With  masterly  technic, 
the  whole  soliloquy  is  keyed  to  the  mood  of  high  comedy.  Pre- 
ceded by  a  brief  colloquy  with  the  boy  and  concluded  with  a 
cleverly  prepared  entrance.  Benedick's  intervening  speech  gives 
the  impression  of  thought,  a  droll  and  natural  revelation  of  his 
ripeness  for  love,  unknown  to  himself. 

His  next  soliloquy  (II,  3,  228-255)  is  a  sequel  to  the  preced- 
ing one.  Now  he  discovers  his  affection  for  Beatrice.  The 
more  serious  his  feelings  become,  the  more  delightful  for  the 
audience,  which  usually  relishes  beholding  the  biter  bit. 
Benedick  himself  forsees  that  he  will  be  the  butt  of  raillery, 
but  he  waives  the  point.  The  fun  is  climactic,  and  the  entrance 
of  the  subject  of  the  discourse  gives  the  cue  for  the  final  touch : 
"  I  do  spy  some  marks  of  love  in  her."  Her  acrid  remarks, 
accompanied  by  her  withdrawal,  affords  Benedick  an  oppor- 
tunity to  conclude  his  musings  (II,  3,  266-273)  with  superb 
confidence  and  compassion.     His  other  soliloquies  are  of  little 


131 

importance.  The  first  one  (II,  i,  208-216)  shows  him  nettled 
by  Beatrice's  sharp  tongue.  In  the  last  one  (V,  2,  25-41),  he 
sings  an  old  song  and  babbles  amorously,  an  excellent  prepara- 
tion for  the  vivacity  of  the  ensuing  scene. 

Conclusion 

Situation,  language  and  mood  all  add  to  the  ludicrous  effect 
of  the  Shakespearean  monolog.  Situation  is  of  the  least  con- 
sequence, since  often  the  speech  may  be  regarded  as  indepen- 
dent of  its  setting.  Notable  exceptions,  however,  are  afforded 
by  the  monolog  of  the  Porter  in  "  Macbeth,"  significant  by 
contrast,  and  by  Falstaff's  stabbing,  the  culmination  of  a  series 
of  episodes  and  ideas.  Shakespeare  does  not  despise  the  tricks 
of  language,  such  as  puns,  malapropisms,  and  incorrect  combi- 
nations of  words, — especially  in  his  early  work.  Further,  he 
infuses  his  comic  monologs  with  a  striking  mood,  generally  one 
of  gaiety,  but  sometimes  of  exaggeration,  violence  or  perplex- 
ity. The  mood,  however,  subserves  the  personality  of  the 
speaker,  which,  in  the  final  analysis,  constitutes  the  essential 
comedy  of  the  soliloquy. 

Launce  the  clown,  Pyramus  and  Thisbe,  mock  hero  and 
heroine,  Thersites  the  cynic,  and  Autolycus  the  rogue, — these 
comic  monologists  have  impressed  their  individualities  on  the 
world's  memory.  Yet  they  may  be  styled  figures  of  one  dimen- 
sion, as  they  conform  more  or  less  closely  to  a  type.  Their 
speeches  were  not  without  predecessors,  but  never  before  was 
the  appeal  so  irresistible.  The  anecdote  had  never  been  quite 
so  effectively  told  as  by  Launce;  the  burlesque  monodies  had 
never  been  so  extravagantly  farcical  as  those  of  Pyramus  and 
Thisbe ;  no  railer  had  been  so  bitterly  violent  as  Thersites ;  no 
rogue  so  charmingly  droll  as  Autolycus. 

As  a  matter  of  course,  the  analysts  are  more  individual  than 
the  stock  figures.  Launcelot  Gobbo's  monolog  piques  the  im- 
agination, because  of  its  clownish  attempt  at  analytical  psy- 
chology; ]\Ialvolio  adds  the  element  of  ponderous  dignity  to 
his  meditations,  another  stimulus  for  producing  mirth;  while 
Benedick  actually  attains  comic  introspection.  He  is  not  de- 
ciphering the  puzzle  of  "  M,  O,  A,  I,"  but  thinking  gravely — 


132 

and  therein  lies  the  humor — on  the  problem  of  love  and  its 
relation  to  himself.  Thus  Shakespeare's  comic  monologs  run 
the  gamut  from  buffoonery  to  high  comedy,  from  the  story 
frankly  addressed  to  the  audience  to  the  soliloquy  as  a  conven- 
tionalized medium  for  the  revelation  of  thought  and  feeling. 
The  use  of  the  thoughtful  monolog  for  provoking  laughter  is 
not  original  with  Shakespeare.  It  was  employed  in  France  as 
early  as  "  Maitre  Pierre  Patelin  "  (1469  c),  and  in  England 
at  rare  intervals  from  the  time  of  the  Playwright  of  Wakefield 
and  John  Heywood;  but  not  until  Shakespeare  does  it  unite  a 
high  degree  of  technical  consistency  with  an  inimitable  expres- 
sion of  individuality. 

Faulconbridge's  somewhat  trivial  commentaries  on  social 
life  carry,  not  only  because  of  their  satiric  tang,  but  also  be- 
cause they  characterize  the  speaker ;  while  the  reasoning  of 
Falstafif  has  all  the  weight  of  his  own  personality.  His  series 
of  soliloquies  on  honor,  among  the  most  notable  in  English 
drama,  involve  the  issue  of  life  or  death.  Related  to  the  mono- 
logs  of  the  miles  glorionsus,  the  coward  gracioso,  and  kindred 
types,  these  are  the  opinions  of  an  experienced  soldier,  logical 
and  witty.  His  sentiments  are  laughable,  not  because  they  are 
fantastic  or  grotesque,  but  because  they  are  firmly  rooted  in 
human  nature.  Moreover,  although  detachable  from  the  rest 
of  the  drama,  Falstaff's  soliloquies  constitute  a  body  of  evi- 
dence essential  for  a  comprehension  of  his  character.  As 
Hamlet's  musings  reveal  the  tragic  tensity  of  his  nature,  so 
Falstaff's  disclose  his  genial  and  pervasive  comic  spirit. 


CHAPTER  VI 

The  Revelation  of  Thought  and  Feeling 
The  transition  from  the  sohloquy  which  is  frankly  speech  to 
that  which  impHes  a  revelation  of  thought  and  emotion  is 
gradual  and  almost  imperceptible.  Yet  the  distinction  is  evi- 
dent :  Launce  talks,  whereas  Hamlet  thinks  and  feels.  As  we 
have  observed,  the  comic  monologist  sometimes  attains  the 
mood  of  introspection,  but  even  Falstaff  addresses  the  au- 
dience. In  tragedy  and  dramatic  romance,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  introspective  soliloquy  is  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception. 

The  Apology  for  the  Introspective  Soliloquy 
The  apologies  which  dramatists  of  various  ages  and  nations 
have  inserted  in  their  works  to  account  for  the  soliloquizer's 
speaking  his  inmost  thoughts  have  merely  served  to  accentuate 
the  unreality  of  the  convention.  Clytemnestra's  soliloquy  which 
opens  the  second  act  of  Seneca's  "Agamemnon "  seems  pur- 
posely to  ignore  the  medium  of  speech,  for  the  Nurse  inter- 
rupts, asking  the  cause  of  Clytemnestra's  silent  ("tacita") 
brooding,  and  the  point  is  emphasized  by  repetition, — "Although 
thou  art  silent"  ("Licet  ipsa  sileas").  Evidently  Studley, 
who  Englished  the  piece  for  the  "  Tenne  Tragedies,"  could  not 
fathom  the  implication :  speech  was  speech  to  him.  Therefore 
he  altered  the  Nurse's  question,  "Quid  tacita  versas?"  to 
"What  muttering  dost  thou  say?" 

The  soliloquy  as  a  talking  to  one's  self  is  the  usual  explana- 
tion, and  this  is  a  significant  step  toward  introspection,  since 
the  idea  of  the  address  to  the  audience  is  thereby  carefully 
excluded.  After  the  Nurse's  monolog  beginning  the  Euripi- 
dean  "  Medea,"  the  Attendant  comes  to  her  with  the  inquiry, 
"  Why  dost  thou  .  .  .  stand  here  at  the  gate  alone,  loudly 
lamenting  to  thyself  the  piteous  tale?"  Similar  apologies 
occur  in  Robert  Greene's  "Alphonsus  "^  and  in  Calderon's 
^  Works,  edited  by  J.  C.  Collins,  Vol.  I,  p.  ii6. 

133 


134 


"  Painter  of  His  Own  Dishonor."-  At  the  opening  of  the 
Towneley  "  Secunda  Pastorum,"  the  First  Shepherd  thus  apol- 
ogizes for  his  audible  musings : 

"  It  does  me  good,  as  I  walk  thus  by  myn  oone, 
Of  this  warld  for  to  talk  in  maner  of  mone." 

So  Preston  in  his  "  Cambises "  has  the  soliloquizing  Lord 
Smirdis  remark,  "  Solitary  to  myselfe  now  I  may  talke."^  The 
excuse  recurs  in  the  nineteenth  century  poets.*  David  of 
Browning's  "  Saul "  says,  "  Let  me  tell  out  my  tale  to  its  end- 
ing— my  voice  to  my  heart." 

Even  Hamlet  laments  that  he  is  reduced  to  the  extremity  of 
unpacking  his  heart  with  words  (H,  2,  614),  but  the  next 
thought,  "About,  my  brain !  "  brings  back  his  soliloquy  into  the 
realm  of  ratiocination.  Indeed  the  only  occurrence  in  Shake- 
speare of  anything  bordering  on  an  explanation  of  the  conven- 
tion is  the  scene  in  which  Titus  Andronicus,  discovered  apos- 
trophizing the  stones,  offers  this  curious  reason  for  the 
phenomenon : 

"  Therefore  I  tell  my  sorrows  to  the  stones  ; 
Who,  though  they  cannot  answer  my  distress. 
Yet  in  some  sort  they  are  better  than  the  tribunes, 
For  they  will  not  intercept  my  tale  "  (III,  i,  37-40). 

The  time-honored  custom  of  addressing  the  soliloquy  to  the 
air  is  no  less  fanciful,  but  perhaps  it  is  a  step  nearer  subjectiv- 
ity, since  the  ideas  are  thereby  dissociated  not  only  from  the 
spectators  but  also  from  the  entire  objective  world.  The  Pro- 
metheus of  Aeschylus,  left  chained  to  the  rock,  invokes  the 
"  divine  ether  and  swift-winged  winds," — the  cry  of  his  very 
soul  piercing  the  solitude. 

"  Alas !  alas !  'tis  hard  to  speak  to  the  winds  ; 
Still  harder  to  be  dumb," 

he  mourns.  Euripides  attempts  the  same  motivation  in  the 
soliloquy  of  the  protagonist  opening  the  "  Iphegenia  among  the 

*  Eight  Dramas  of  Calderon,  by  Edward  Fitzgerald,  p.  54. 
'  Manly,  Vol.  II,  p.  igo, 

*  See  ante,  p.  96. 


135 

Tauri  " :  "  Strange  visions  the  past  night  brought  me,  which  I 
will  tell  to  the  air,  if  there  is  really  any  help  in  that."  Pieces 
as  widely  different  as  Calderon's  "  Physician  of  his  Honor " 
(I,  5)  and  the  "Virginius"  (I,  2)  of  Sheridan  Knowles  have 
heroines  who  confide  the  secret  of  their  love  to  the  "gentle 
air."  "  O  thou  most  silent  air,  that  shalt  not  hear  what  now 
I  think!"  cries  Shelley's  Cenci  (I,  i)  in  a  strained  effort  to 
reconcile  the  convention  with  reality.  In  the  same  soliloquy 
Cenci  affirms  that  he  need  not  speak,  "  though  the  heart  tri- 
umphs with  itself  in  words."  "  This  shows,"  observes  Pro- 
fessor Bates,^  "that  Shelley  himself  regarded  the  soliloquy  as 
a  form  of  actual  speech  instead  of  as  a  merely  symbolic  means 
of  making  known  to  us  unspoken  and  concealed  feelings  that 
could  not  otherwise  be  made  manifest." 

All  of  the  apologists  admit  that  the  soliloquizer  is  talking — 
else  there  would  be  no  need  of  apology — yet  in  each  form  of 
explanation  there  is  an  attempt  to  harmonize  the  symbol  with 
the  fact.  The  soliloquizer  is  talking  to  himself,  assert  one 
group  of  apologists,  of  whom  Moliere  and  Joanna  Baillie®  take 
elaborate  pains  to  indicate  that  the  speaker  is  in  a  kind  of 
trance,  as  he  gives  utterance  to  his  secret  thoughts  and  feelings. 
Other  dramatists  present  a  solitary  character  talking  to  the 
air ;  but  Shelley,  evidently  trying  to  depict  the  heart  triumphing 
with  itself  in  words,  is  forced  by  his  own  reasoning  into  a 
logical  blind-alley,  and  accordingly  he  strikes  his  soliloquizer 
dumb.  Not  so  Shakespeare's  Titus,  who,  unlike  the  creatures 
of  other  apologists,  boldly  defends  his  apostrophe  as  sensible 
and  consistent. 

The  Apostrophe 
Apostrophes  to  the  air  and  even  to  the  stones  transcend  the 
commonplace  and  consequently  give  range  to  the  spirit.  In- 
deed the  apostrophe  is  ari  important  rhetorical  contrivance  for 
expressing  the  inmost  convictions  and  impulses.  Since  the 
beginning  of  drama,  the  number  and  variety  of  monologic  apos- 
trophes is  legion.     Leo  observes  that  the  only  soliloquies  in  the 

^  A  Study  of  Shelley's  Drama,  the  Cenci,  p.  53. 
'  See  ante,  p.  96. 


136 

extant  dramas  of  Aeschylus — the  openings  of  "  Prometheus 
Bound,"  "Agamemnon  "  and  "  Eumenides  " — are  all  uttered 
not  as  communings  with  the  soul,  but  as  apostrophes  to  the 
gods  or  to  the  encompassing  solitude  of  the  elements  !^  The 
soliloquies  of  classic  tragedy  owe  no  small  measure  of  their 
lofty  mood  to  the  device,  and  Seneca  helps  to  preserve  the  tra- 
dition for  England.  Jasper  Heywood,  translating  SenecaC's 
"Thyestes,"  added  a  final  monolog  by  the  protagonist.  Be- 
ginning 

"  O  King  of  Mytis  dungeon  darke,  and  grisly  Ghosts  of  hell," 

it  abounds  in  the  grandiose  apostrophes  introduced  by  "O " 
which  delighted  the  Elizabethans,  and  which  were  immortalized 
in  parody  by  "A  Midsummer- Night's  Dream"  (V,  i). 

Shakespeare  freely  uses  the  apostrophe  in. imypassioned  and 
introspective  soliloquies.  The  address  to  the  dead  and  the 
sleeping,  as  well  as  to  dagger  and  sword,  we  have  already  dis- 
cussed.^ The  soliloquizer  often  addresses  himself,  a  device 
which,  according  to  Leo  (p.  94),  first  appears  in  Hesiod.  In 
Shakespeare  the  self-adjuration  is  sometimes  jesting,''  often 
serious,^"  and  occasionally  marked  by  a  tragic  intensity,  as 
when,  for  example,  Angelo  asks,  "  What  dost  thou,  or  what  art 
thou,  Angelo  ?"^^  Akin  to  the  apostrophe  of  self  is  Hamlet's 
calling  upon  his  heart  and  sinews  (I,  5,  93-94),  and  again  upon 
his  heart  and  soul  (III,  2,  411,  417). 

Hamlet's  memorable  "Remember  thee!"  (I,  5,  97-104) 
illustrates  another  kind  of  apostrophe  frequent  in  Shake- 
spearean soliloquy,  the  address  to  a  character  who  has  just 
made  his  exit.  By  aid  of  this  device,  the  playwright  elicits  a 
variety  of  emotions, — sympathy  in  the  farewells  to  Andronicus 
(III,  I,  289)   and  Shylock   (II,  5,  56-57),  merriment  in  the 

'  Friedrich  Leo :  "  Der  Monolog  im  Drama :  ein  Beitrag  zur  griechische- 
romischen  Poetik,"  Abhandlungen  der  Koniglichen  Gesellschaft  der  IVis- 
senschaften  zu  Gottingen  Philologisch-Historische  Klasse,  Neue  Folge,  Band 
X,  Nro.  S,  Berlin,  1908,  p.  9. 

'  See  ante,  pp.  75,  76,  79. 

"Merry  Wives,  II,  2,  144-147;  III,  5,  142-144. 

^'' Titus  Andronicus,  I,  i,  338-340;  II,  i,  12.  Tzvo  Gentlemen,  V,  4,  18. 
King  Lear,  I,  4,  4. 

^'^  Measure  for  Measure,  II,  2,  173. 


137 

quips  of  King  Henry  the  Fifth  (IV,  i,  34,  63),  excitement  in 
the  curses  invoked  on  Gremio  in  "  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew  " 
(II,  I,  406)  and  on  the  Nurse  of  "  Romeo  and  JuHet"  (III,  5, 
235),  and  sentiment  in  Romeo's  lover-hke  adjuration  to  the 
departing  Juhet  (II,  2,  187-188)  and  in  Othello's  impassioned 
tribute  to  Desdemona  as  she  withdraws  (III,  3,  88-89). 

The  romantic  soliloquy  often  contains  an  address  to  the 
absent  loved  one.  Proteus  apostrophizes  his  Julia,  and  Valen- 
tine his  Sylvia  (I,  i,  66-69;  V,  4,  11-12),  Jessica  her  Lorenzo 
(II,  3,  19-21),  and  JuHet  her  Romeo  (III,  2,  6,  17).  The 
absent  sweetheart  supposedly  dead  is  invoked  by  Romeo  in  the 
famous  line  "Well,  Juliet,  I  will  lie  with  thee  tonight"  (V,  i, 
34)  and  by  Antony  under  similar  circumstances  in  his  "  I  will 
o'ertake  thee,  Cleopatra"  (IV,  14,  44). 

The  character  apostrophized  is  usually  a  leading  figure  of 
the  drama:  Richard  the  Second  is  thus  addressed  (II,  3,  18), 
and  so  are  Antony  of  "Antony  and  Cleopatra"  (IV,  9,  18-23) 
and  Posthumus  of  "  Cymbeline"  (III,  6,  14-15 ;  IV,  i,  15-19). 
Cymbeline  himself  is  invoked  in  an  exceptionally  awkward 
fashion  (III,  3,  99),  the  attempt  at  the  grand  style  scarcely 
fitting  the  crudely  narrative  monolog.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
keen  analysis  of  personality  and  the  bold  sweep  of  imagination 
characterizing  Lady  Macbeth's  opening  soliloquy  (I,  5,  16-31) 
depend  upon  the  same  rhetorical  device.  The  reading  of  Mac- 
beth's letter,  to  be  sure,  adds  naturalism  to  the  apostrophe  to 
the  writer,  and  the  letter-reading  contrivance  likewise  lends 
vivacity  to  Hotspur's  upbraiding  of  his  lordly  correspondent 
(II,  3,  9-16),  the  reply  of  the  Countess  to  her  "rash  and  un- 
bridled boy"  ("All's  Well,"  III,  2,  30),  and  Pisanio's  grieved 
remonstrance  to  his  master  ("Cymbeline,"  III,  2,  1-12).  Pi- 
sanio  concludes  his  soliloquy  by  violently  reproaching  the  letter 
itself. 

Indeed  the  variety  of  things  apostrophized  defies  classifica- 
tion, although  it  is  interesting  to  note  some  of  the  conspicuous 
themes.  Supplication  is  often  made  to  the  night  and  the  moon 
by  Elizabethan  soliloquizers,  to  which  fact  the  burlesque  invo- 
cations of  Pyramus  and  Thisbe  testify  (V,  i,  171-173,  276- 
280,  310).     Juliet's  rhapsody  beginning  "Come,  civil  night," 


138 

and  concluding  "  Come,  gentle  night,  come,  loving,  black- 
browed  night"  (III,  2,  10-20)  indicates  the  romantic  possi- 
bilities of  the  apostrophe;  while  Lady  Macbeth's  "  Come,  thick 
night"  (I,  5,  51)  reveals  its  tragic  power.  The  last  words  of 
Enobarbus  to  the  night  and  the  moon  (IV,  9,  5,  6-15)  display 
the  quasi-tragic  effects  of  the  apostrophe. 

The  invocation  to  sleep  gives  rise  to  some  of  the  noblest 
poetry  in  Shakespeare, — for  example,  Henry  the  Fourth's  ma- 
jestic and  musical  revery  (Part  II,  III,  i,  5-30).  Henry's 
supplication  to  "gentle  Sleep,"  "thou  dull  god,"  and  "partial 
Sleep  "  seem  a  prelude  to  the  various  epithets  into  which  Mac- 
beth's imagination  coins  the  theme  (II,  2,  36-40)  ;  while 
lachimo's  soliloquy  over  the  slumbering  Imogen  affords  an 
epilog  to  the  series  : 

"  O  sleep,  thou  ape  of  death,  lie  dull  upon  her!  "  (II,  2,  31). 

^--^^Cpostrophes  to  abstract  qualities,  like  those  to  sleep,  are 
'  especially  suited  to  the  mood  of  the  reflective  soliloquy, — for 
example,  Mark  Antony's  address  to  Mischief  ("Julius  Caesar," 
III,  2,  265),  Hamlet's  to  Frailty  (I,  2,  146),  and  Henry  the 
Fifth's  elaborate  apostrophe  to  Ceremony  (IV,  2,  257-283). 
The  frequency  of  personifications  in  Elizabethan  drama  is 
doubtless  due  to  the  influence  of  the  morality  plays.  Invoca- 
tions of  the  goddess  Fortune,  very  prevalent  in  Elizabethan 
days,  appear  in  the  soliloquies  of  almost  every  age  and  clime. 
Cloten  invokes  the  fickle  deity  (IV,  i,  25),  as  Rakshasa  does 
in  the  Sanskrit  piece  "  Mudra-Rdkshasa."^^ 

The  Prayer 
The  address  to  qualities  and  things  sometimes  assumes  the 
guise  of  prayer.  Lear's  moralizing  on  "  You  houseless  pov- 
erty" he  styles  a  prayer  (III,  4,  2.'j').  Timon's  misanthropic 
moralizing  on  one  occasion  begins,  "  O  blessed  breeding  sun  " 
(IV,  3,  i),  and  on  another  occasion,  "Common  mother, 
thou," — an  apostrophe  to  the  earth  (IV,  3,  177)  ;  while  his 
multitudinous  apostrophes  to  Athens,  its  walls,  matrons,  slaves, 
fools,  bankrupts,  and  so  forth,  are  ironically  blended  into  a 

"Select  Specimens  of  the  Hindu  Drama,  Vol.  II,  p.  175. 


139 

semblance  to  prayer,  concluding  with  an  "Amen"  (IV,  i, 
1-41).  One  of  the  soliloquies  of  Thersites  is  also  merged 
into  a  violently  ironic  prayer,  terminating  in  a  similar  fashion : 
"I  have  said  my  prayers,  and  devil  Envy  say  Amen"  (II,  3, 
10-24). 

Doubtless  due  to  the  religious  origin  of  the  serious  drama, 
the  prayer,  especially  as  the  opening  monolog,  is  one  of  the 
oldest  forms  of  soliloquy.  Aeschylus  abounds  in  supplications 
to  the  elements  and  to  divinities,  and  Euripides  revives  the 
device,  practically  abandoned  by  Sophocles.  The  "  Suppliants" 
and  "  Phoenician  Maidens  "  of  Euripides  begin  with  invoca- 
tions of  the  gods.  Seneca  also  uses  the  opening  prayer ;  at  the 
outset  of  the  "  Medea,"  for  example,  the  heroine  entreats  the 
vengeance  of  the  gods. 

Likewise  the  miracle  plays  often  open  with  prayer.  The 
Coventry  cycle  is  especially  addicted  to  this  introduction,  and 
the  Abraham  play  of  the  York  group  efifectively  utilizes  the 
contrivance.  Even  the  brisk  buffoonery  of  the  Towneley  Noah 
play  is  prologed  by  a  long  and  pious  invocation.  The  miracles 
sometimes  begin  with  a  succession  of  prayers,^^  and  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  opening  prayer  is  continued  in  a  number  of  the 
moralities.  Rastell's  "Nature  of  the  Four  Elements"  (1517 
c.)  has  a  prolog  which  is  a  prayer  for  the  audience,  and 
Lyndsay's  "  Satire  of  the  Three  Estates "  opens  with  a 
prayer  to  the  "  Lord  of  Lords  and  King  of  Kings."  In  "  Man- 
kind," Tytyvillus  enters  and  observes  Mankind  on  his  knees, 
saying  his  "  Pater  noster,"^* — a  situation  similar  to  that  in 
which  Hamlet  sees  the  King  praying  (III,  3). 

The  prayers  which  are  occasionally  interspersed  in  the  early 
drama  of  England  are  the  result  of  classical  as  well  as  native 
influence.  Tancred's  invocation  to  Jove  the  thunderer  in  "  Gis- 
mond  of  Salerne "  (IV,  2)  is  a  stock  device  in  Seneca,^*^ 
destined  to  become  no  less  familiar  in  English  tragedy.     Side 

"Examples:  the  York  Flight  of  Egypt,  p.  138,  and  the  Coventry  Noah's 
Flood,  p.  40. 

"  Manly,  Vol.  I,  p.  336. 

^'  J.  W.  Cunliffe :  "  Gismond  of  Salerne,"  Publications  of  the  Modern  Lan- 
guage Association  of  America,  New  Series,  Vol.  XIV,  No.  2,  p.  454. 


140 

by  side  with  such  prayers  to  mythological  deities  are  many 
supplications  to  the  Christian  god  in  the  works  of  Shake- 
speare's predecessors.  Shakespeare's  master  Marlowe  puts  in 
the  mouth  of  the  dying  Sigismund  a  cry  to  the  "  just  and 
dreadful  punisher  of  sin"  ("  Tamburlaine,"  Part  II,  II,  3), 
while  Olympia,  about  to  suicide,  exclaims, 

"  Ah  sacred  Mahomet,  if  this  be  sin, 
Entreat  a  pardon  of  the  God  of  Heaven  "  (u.  s.,  Ill,  4). 

The  introspective  attitude  of  prayer,  as  well  as  its  deep  spir- 
itual significance,  is  invariably  emphasized  by  Shakespeare. 
He  who  judges  all  things  is  implored  to  stay  his  thoughts  by 
the  King  in  "The  Second  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth"  (III,  2, 
136-146).  On  the  eve  of  battle,  Richmond  of  "Richard  the 
Third  "  prays  i or  victory : 

"  Make  us  thy  ministers  of  chastisement 
That  we  may  praise  Thee  in  the  victory"  (V,  3,  114-115). 

Likewise,  before  the  fight,  Henry  the  Fifth  in  majestic  phrase 
asks  aid  of  the  God  of  battles,  at  the  same  time  beseeching  par- 
don for  his  father's  sin  (IV,  i,  306-322).  King  Henry's  ac- 
count of  the  devices  he  has  used  for  obtaining  divine  forgive- 
ness give  the  impression  of  rhetorical  pageantry  rather  than 
sincere  contrition,  since,  like  the  King  in  "  Hamlet,"  he  wants 
to  be  pardoned  and  retain  the  ofifence.  The  soliloquy  of 
Claudius,  however,  is  a  human  document  depicting  a  guilty 
soul's  struggle  to  pray  (111,3,36-72).  Realizing  the  enormity 
of  his  crime,  he  cannot  find  words  with  which  to  ask  forgive- 
ness. He  starts  and  halts.  Then  comes  the  revelation  of  the 
divine  code,  questions,  exclamations,  the  poignant  plea  for  help, 
the  pliant  yielding  of  the  knees,  and  the  beautiful  trust  of 
the  concluding  hope.  "  The  final  'All  may  be  well ! '  "  says 
Coleridge,^^  "is  remarkable;  the  degree  of  merit  attributed  by 
the  self-flattering  soul  to  its  own  struggle,  though  baffled,  and 
to  the  indefinite  half-promise,  half-command,  to  persevere  in 
religious  duties.  The  solution  is  in  the  divine  medium  of  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  expiation."  The  whole  soliloquy  seems 
a  depiction  of  feelings  and  ideas  rather  than  of  spoken  words. 

"  Furness  Variorum  Edition  of  Hamlet,  Vol.  I,  p.  280. 


141 

The  pagan  prayers  in  Shakespeare  are  treated  with  less  elab- 
oration than  the  Christian  ones.  Pericles  calls  upon  "  Thou 
god  of  this  great  vast  "  and  upon  Lucina,  "  divinest  patroness  " 
(III,  I,  1-14).  Posthumus  calls  upon  the  gods  in  his  anguish 
(V,  I,  7,  31),  and  Imogen's  pagan  prayer  before  sleeping  is 
charming  in  its  simplicity  and  brevity  (II,  1,8-10).  "  By  your 
leave,  gods!"  cries  Titinius  before  killing  himself  ("Julius 
Caesar,"  V,  3,  89),  but  such  invocations  are  too  short  to  merit 
consideration  as  prayers.  On  the  other  hand.  Lady  Macbeth's 
famous  supplication  to  the  "  Spirits  that  tend  on  mortal 
thoughts"  (I,  5,  41-51)  is  especially  significant  in  this  study 
for  two  reasons :  first,  since  it  invokes  the  aid  of  "  murdering 
ministers,"  it  differs  from  the  other  prayers  in  its  evil  intent; 
second,  the  spirits  called  upon  attend  thoughts,  thus  implying — 
and  the  context  corroborates  the  assumption — that  the  solilo- 
quy is  a  revelation  of  thought.  Lady  Macbeth's  turgid  utter- 
ance seems  a  glimpse  of  dark  and  hidden  purposes  yet  un- 
phrased,  and  the  impression  is  given  color  by  the  summoning 
of  the  spirits  attending  deadly  thoughts. 

Textual  Indications  of  Introspection 
As  in  the  case  of  Lady  Macbeth's  baneful  prayer,  introspec- 
tion is  often  indicated  by  a  reference  to  thought  in  the  text  of 
the  soliloquy.  Thus  Chanakya  of  the  "  Mudrd-Rakshasa " 
speaks  of  "these  anxious  thoughts. "^^  The  introspective  char- 
acter of  Senecan  drama  leaves  its  mark  on  the  majority  of  the 
soliloquies  of  English  tragedy.  To  be  sure,  medieval  tradition, 
as  manifested  in  the  reflections  of  Everyman,  has  its  influence; 
but  it  is  the  Senecan  tragedy  "  Gorboduc  "  which  first  clearly 
enunciates  the  English  soliloquy  as.  a  revelation  of  thought  inti- 
mately associated  with  the  progress  of  the  action.  The  text  of 
"  Gorboduc,"Tiowever,""  offers  no  such  evidence  of  mental  proc- 
esses as  occur  in  "  The  Misfortunes  of  Arthur."  There 
Mordred  begins  with  a  translation  of  "  Thyestes,"  418-420:^* 

"  A  troubled  head :  my  mind  revolts  to  fear, 
And  bears  my  body  back."" 

"  Select  Specimens  of  the  Theater  of  the  Hindus,  Vol.  II,  p.  193. 
"  See  Cunliffe's  Senecan  Influence,  p.  149,  and  also  Appendix  II. 
"  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  Vol.  IV,  p.  295. 


142 

The  soliloquizer  continues,  "  I  inwards  feel  my  fall  " — an  obser- 
vation nothing  if  not  introspective ;  and  he  adds,  "  My  thoughts 
misgive  me  much."  In  "Arden  of  Feversham,"  Mosbie  opens 
a  soliloquy  with  the  explanation,  "  Disturbed  thoughts  drive  me 
from  companyj''^"  and  Michael  of  the  same  piece  begins  his 
meditations  with  a  reference  to  the  '  conflicting  thoughts  en- 
camped in  his  breast.'^"  Likewise  Bajazet  at  the  opening  of 
"  The  First  Part  of  Selimus  "  exclaims, 

"  So,  Bajazet,  now  thou  remainest  alone. 
Unrip  the  thoughts  that  harbor  in  thy  breast, —  " 

an  unequivocal  acknowledgment  that  the  soliloquy  depicts 
thought.  The  fact  that  the  Elizabethan  word  "  thought "  may 
signify  "  care,"  "  anxiety,"  "  sorrow  "  or  "  brooding  "  does  not 
dissociate  the  term  from  intellectual  processes.  Greene's  Or- 
lando thus  catechises  himself, 

"  Orlando,  what  contrarious  thoughts  be  these 
That  flock  with  doubtful  motions  in  thy  mind?  "^ 

Shakespeare's  predecessors  afTord  a  number  of  similar  in- 
stances, and,  after  his  usage  crystallizes  the  introspective  solilo- 
quy as  a  convention,  his  successors  often  avail  themselves  of 
it.  In  one  of  the  most  effectively  histrionic  soliloquies  in  the 
language,  Antonio  of  Marston's  "Antonio  and  Mellida  "  muses 
on  the  introspective  faculties  in  this  fashion : 

"  When  discursive  powers  fly  out. 
And  roam  in  progress  through  the  bounds  of  heaven, 
The  soul  itself  gallops  along  with  them, 
As  chieftain  of  this  winged  troop  of  thought, 
Whilst  the  dull  lodge  of  spirit  standeth  waste. 
Until  the  soul  return  from  .     What  was't  I  said?"" 

While  soaring  in  the  realms  of  imagination,  Marston's  hero 
makes  an  abrupt  transition  to  speech.  It  is  a  peculiarity  of  the 
convention  that,  even  when  the  soliloquy  most  graphically 
reveals  the  workings  of  the  brain,  there  is  apt  to  be  some  refer- 
ence to  the  tongue  as  the  means  of  expression — an  indication 

"^  Arden  of  Feversham,  edited  by  Dr.  N.  Delius,  pp.  44,  Z7- 
^  Plays  and  Poems,  edited  by  J.  C.  Collins,  Vol.  I,  p.  239. 
*»  Works,  edited  by  A.  H.  Bullen,  Vol.  I,  p.  63. 


143 

that  the  EHzabethans  were  not  fully  conscious  of  the  symbolic 
value  of  the  artifice  they  had  created.  Macbeth  beholds  the 
fatal  vision, 

"  A  dagger  of  the  mind,  a  false  creation, 
Proceeding  from  the  heat-oppressed  brain  "  (II,  i,  38-39)  ; 

and  yet  in  another  instant  he  regrets  the  words  of  his  soliloquy: 

"  Whiles  I  threat  he  lives  : 
Words  to  the  heat  of  deeds  too  cold  breath  gives"  (II,  i,  61). 

"About,  my  brain!"  cries  Hamlet  (II,  2,  617),  and  dexter- 
ously the  audience  is  transported  into  his  mental  processes ;  but 
only  a  moment  before,  he  laments  his  unpacking  his  heart  with 
words.  To  be  sure,  there  is  nothing  violently  antipodal  in 
these  two  assertions :  the  reflection  may  be  interpreted  either 
as  thought  or  as  speech.  Quite  possibly  neither  playwright 
nor  auditor  ever  considered  the  matter. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  in  the  medita- 
tions of  Shakespearean  soliloquizers,  particularly  in  those  of 
Hamlet,  the  word  "  thought "  and  the  idea  of  thinking  con- 
stantly recur.  "  Let  me  not  think  on't !  "  says  Hamlet  to  him- 
self (1, 2, 146) .  Again,  he  speaks  of  '  the  table  of  his  memory  ' 
and  'the  book  and  volume  of  his  brain  '  (I,  5,98, 103).  "  Con- 
science" he  uses  in  the  sense  of  "pondering"  or  "thought" 
(III,  I,  83)  ;  and  the  whole  soliloquy  is  "  sicklied  o'er  with  the 
pale  cast  of  thought" — "thought"  here  signifying  "anxious 
reflection." 

"  Whether  it  be 
Bestial  oblivion,  or  some  craven  scruple 
Of  thinking  too  precisely  on  the  event, — 
A  thought  which,  quarter'd,  hath  but  one  part  wisdom 
And  ever  three  parts  coward, —  " 

thus  in  Hamlet's  last  soliloquy  he  analyzes  his  reasoning, — an 
indubitably  introspective  attitude. 

The  word  "  thought "  so  frequently  recurs  in  Shakespearean 
soliloquy  that  it  appears  intentionally  used  to  accentuate  the 
meditative  mood.  "  Now,  York,  or  never,  steel  thy  fearful 
thoughts"  sounds  the  key  note  of  a  long  soliloquy  in  "The 


144 

Second  Part  of  Henry  the  Sixth"  (III,  i,  331-383),  a  speech 
containing  this  significant  passage : 

"  Faster  than  spring-time  showers  comes  thought  on  thought, 
And  not  a  thought  but  thinks  on  dignity. 
My  brain  more  busy  than  the  laboring  spider 
Weaves  tedious  snares  to  trap  mine  enemies." 

Equally  clear  is  the  implicationof  thinking  in  the  opening  speech 
by  Richard  the  Third,  terminated  with  the  abrupt  conclusion, 
"Dive,  thoughts,  down  to  my  soul."  Schlegel  defends  the 
soliloquy  on  the  grounds  that  "  the  poet  has  the  right  in  solilo- 
quies to  lend  a  voice  to  the  most  hidden  thoughts,"-^  and 
Brandes  expresses  a  similar  idea  when  he  affirms  that  "  the 
monolog,  as  a  whole,  is  a  non-realistic  unfolding  of  secret 
thoughts  in  words."^* 

There  is  sustained  emphasis  on  the  thought  element  in  the 
soliloquy  of  Richard  the  Second  in  which  he  lays  bare  the 
workings  of  his  brain  (V,  5,  1-66)  : 

"  My  brain  I'll  prove  the  female  to  my  soul, 
My  soul  the  father ;  and  these  two  beget 
A  generation  of  still-breeding  thoughts." 

"  Thoughts  of  things  divine  "  turn  his  attention  to  some  per- 
plexities occasioned  by  the  holy  word.  "  Thoughts  tending  to 
ambition "  strive  in  vain  to  find  a  way  out  of  his  prison. 
"  Thoughts  tending  to  content "  comfort  him  with  the  assur- 
ance that  misery  has  company.  Thereupon  the  unhappy  king's 
imagination  wiles  away  the  time,  one  of  his  fancies  being  that 
his  thoughts  are  minutes. 

Thought  is  the  key  note  of  several  other  Shakespearean  solil- 
oquies. Enobarbus,  for  example,  has  a  premonition  that  sor- 
rowful meditation  will  cause  his  death: 

"  This  blows  my  heart. 
If  swift  thought  break  it  not,  a  swifter  mean 
Shall  outstrike  thought ;  but  thought  will  do't,  I  feel  " 

(IV,  6,  34-36). 

^Lectures  on  Dramatic  Art  and  Literature,  translated  by  J.  Black,  p.  435. 
^  William  Shakespeare,  p.  127. 


145 

But  the  passage  which  proves  that  Shakespeare  recognized  the 
sohloquy  as  a  device  for  reveahng  inaudible  thoughts  is  the 
episode  in  which  Macbeth  ponders  on  the  prophecy  of  the 
weird  sisters  (I,  3).  He  is  horrified  by  the  first  temptation 
to  crime,  the  "  thought  whose  murder  yet  is  but  fantastical." 
While  he  soliloquizes,  the  others  watch  him  closely,  but  they 
are  unconscious  that  he  is  speaking :  "  Look,  how  our  partner's 
rapt,"  says  Banquo,  and  the  object  of  their  gaze,  oblivious  to 
onlookers,  continues  his  meditations.  When  he  realizes  his 
lapse  in  etiquette,  he  apologizes,  not  for  talking,  but  for 
thinking : 

"  Give  me  your  favor ;  my  dull  brain  was  wrought 
With  things  forgotten"    (I,  3,   149-150). 

The  Setting  of  the  Introspective  Soliloquy 
The  soliloquizer's  assertion  that  he  is  thinking  is  not  the 
only  method  of  differentiating  the  introspective  soliloquy  from 
dialog.  A  commonplace  sentence  preceding  the  monolog,  one 
following  it,  and  also,  occasionally,  brief  interruptions  serve  as 
a  contrast  to  exalted  and  intensive  musings.  Such  short  sen- 
tences, usually  directions  to  servants,  are  by  no  means  original 
with  Shakespeare,  but  they  become  thoroughly  convention- 
alized by  his  usage.  Accordingly,  a  study  of  the  reflective 
soliloquy  cannot  neglect  this  contrivance  which  effects  its 
setting. 

The  introspective  soliloquy  is  often  preceded  by  a  direction 
to  a  servant  or  to  a  social  inferior.  Pericles  bids  his  lords  to 
let  none  disturb  him,  and  then,  alone,  he  instantly  ponders  on 
his  change  of  thoughts  (I,  2,  1-3).  So  Bajazet,  at  the  opening 
of  "  Selimus,"  directs  his  lords  to  leave  him,  whereupon  he  pro- 
ceeds to  '  unrip  the  thoughts  that  harbor  in  his  breast.'  The 
same  device  occurs  in  Hamlet's  speech, 

"  Leave  me,  friend.     (Exeunt  all  but  Hamlet.) 
'Tis  now  the  very  witching  time  of  night"  (III,  2,  405-406). 

So  Macbeth's 

"  Get  thee  to  bed.     (Exit  Servant.) 
Is  this  a  dagger  which  I  see  before  me?  "  (II,  i,  32-33) 

11 


146 

illustrates  the  antithetical  juxtaposition,  frequent  in  Shake- 
speare,^'^ of  the  commonplace  direction  to  an  attendant  and  the 
revelation  of  the  inmost  ideas  and  feelings. 

The  interruption  of  a  soliloquy  by  a  call  to  a  servant  also 
creates  the  appearance  of  a  distinction  between  speech  and 
thought.  The  calls  of  Brutus  to  Lucius  (II,  i,  i,  3,  5),  An- 
tony to  Eros  (IV,  14,  50,  54),  and  Macbeth  to  Seyton  (V,  3, 
19,  20,  29)  may,  or  may  not,  have  been  intended  to  represent 
speech  as  contrasted  with  the  introspection  and  emotion  of  the 
soliloquies  in  which  they  are  imbedded,  but  this,  assuredly,  is 
the  effect  produced. 

"  Seyton ! — I    am   sick   at   heart 
When  I  behold — Seyton,  I  say !  " — 

the  profound  melancholy  of  Macbeth's  retrospection  is  vivified 
by  the  summons  which  serves  as  a  setting  for  the  monolog, 
opening,  interrupting  and  closing  it.  Likewise  the  soliloquies 
of  Brutus  and  Antony  are  concluded  as  well  as  interrupted  by 
the  summons. 

The  summons  is  a  favorite  method  of  terminating  the  solilo- 
quy among  the  Elizabethans.  The  first  conspicuous  use  of  the 
summons-close  is  in  two  soliloquies  by  Tancred  in  "  Gismond 
of  Salerne"  (IV,  2,  84,  120).  Here  the  effect  is  startling, 
the  abrupt  call  giving  the  impression  of  articulate  speech  fol- 
lowing hard  upon  a  whirlwind  of  passionate  cogitation. 
Shakespeare's  predecessors  often  use  the  device, — for  example, 
the  conclusion  of  the  opening  soliloquy  of  Marlowe's  Faustus : 

"  Here,  Faustus,  tire  thy  brains  to  gain  a  deity. 
Wagner !  " 

Similarly,  Julia  of  "The  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona"  (I,  2, 
66),  Oliver  of  "As  You  Like  It"  (I,  i,  92),  the  Senator  of 
"Timon"  (II,  i,  13-14)  and  Antony  of  "Antony  and  Cleo- 
patra" (I,  2,  134)  break  off  their  meditations  by  calling  out 
the  name  of  a  servant  who  instantly  appears.  Three  of 
Antony's  soliloquies  are  terminated  by  a  cry  to  Eros,  who  pre- 
sents himself  on  the  last  occasion  (IV,  12,  30,  48;  IV,  14,  54). 

^  Other  examples:  Macbeth,  III,  i,  48;  III,  i,  140;  V,  3,  19.  Hamlet,  IV, 
4.  31-32.    Lear,  III,  4,  26. 


147 

Sometimes  the  summoning  of  a  servant  is  effected  by  some 
such  phrase  as  "  Within  here !  "  used  by  Marlowe's  Barabas 
(V,  3)  or  "Who's  there  within?"  which  ends  the  meditations 
of  Tiberius  in  Jonson's  "  Sejanus  "  (III,  3).  "Who's  with- 
in?" abruptly  cries  Shakespeare's  Julius  Caesar  (II,  2,  3); 
"Who's  there?"  demands  Macbeth  (III,  i,  72);  and  "Who 
attends  us  there?"  asks  Antiochus  of  "Pericles"  (I,  i,  150). 
In  each  case,  there  is  an  immediate  response  from  the  servant, 
and  thus  is  accomplished  with  no  apparent  incongruity  a  quick 
and  dramatic  transition  from  revery  to  action. 

The  soliloquizer  occasionally  summons  a  character  other 
than  a  servant,  in  plays  of  various  nations  and  periods. 
Shakespeare's  Romeo  summons  the  Apothecary  at  the  end  of 
his  soliloquy  (V,  i,  57)  just  as  Marlowe's  Guise  summons  the 
Apothecary  at  the  end  of  his,  in  "  The  Massacre  of  Paris " 
(I,  2).  The  same  device  enables  Eglamour  of  "The  Two 
Gentlemen  of  Verona  "  to  entreat  the  presence  of  his  lady  (IV, 
3,  3),  and  Thersites  to  hail  Achilles  (II,  3,  23). 

The  summons  is  not  the  only  form  of  close  for  the  intro- 
spective soliloquy  which  gives  the  effect  of  a  breaking  into 
speech.  The  same  function  is  often  performed  by  the  pre- 
pared entrance,-^ — most  conspicuously  in  Gloucester's  "  Dive, 
thoughts,  down  to  my  soul;  here  Clarence  comes"  (I,  i,  41). 
Hamlet's  "soft  you  now!  the  fair  Ophelia!"  (Ill,  i,  88-89) 
is  a  more  graceful  transitoin.  "  But,  hush !  no  more,"  Banquo 
admonishes  himself,  as  the  sennet  is  sounded  preceding  the 
royal  entrance  (III,  i,  10). 

Sometimes  the  soliloquizer  is  interrupted  in  such  a  way  as 
to  mark  the  contrast  between  meditation  and  conversation.  In 
the  midst  of  dialog,  Richard  the  Third  (IV,  2,  98-110)  and 
Macbeth  (I,  3,  1 16-147)  lapse  into  revery,  and  they  are 
brought  back  to  reality  only  by  their  companions'  insistent 
addresses.  Rarely  is  the  soliloquy  interrupted  by  the  speech  of 
one  entering,  as  in  the  case  of  the  passionate  outbursts  of 
Troilus,  which  are  cut  short  by  the  chattering  Pandarus  (III, 
2,  30,  41).  The  interruption  may  be  occasioned  by  the  en- 
trance of  a  servant  who  is  accosted  by  the  soliloquizer  in  a 

^  See  ante,  p.  55. 


148 

matter-of-fact  way,  producing  an  effect  similar  to  that  of  the 
summons.  Thus  Mark  Antony's  grandiose  curse  over  the 
corpse  of  Caesar  is  broken  off,  upon  the  entrance  of  Octavius' 
servant,  with  "You  serve  Octavius  Caesar,  do  you  not?"  (Ill, 
I,  276).^^  Again,  Richard  the  Third's  frenzied  communion 
with  his  conscience  is  interrupted  by  RatcHffe's  morning  salu- 
tation (V,  3,  207).  Most  impressive  is  the  transition  caused 
by  the  entrance  of  Macbeth  (I,  5,  55)  :  the  direful  monody  of 
Lady  Macbeth  is  wrought  to  a  period  of  climactic  fervor  in 
the  awful  cry,  "Hold!  hold!" — whereupon,  her  husband  ap- 
pearing, her  majestic  salutation, 

"  Great  Glamis  !  worthy  Cawdor  ! 
Greater  than  both,  by  the  all-hail  hereafter !  " 

preserves  the  dignity  of  the  discourse,  while  adjusting  its  mood 
to  the  tone  of  conversation. 

Moralizing 
The  setting  of  the  introspective  soliloquy,  usually  suggested 
by  a  word  to  a  servant  preceding,  succeeding  or  during  its 
progress,  is  a  significant  accessory,  but  naturally  its  importance 
is  subservient  to  the  content  of  the  soliloquy  itself.  One  prom- 
inent characteristic  of  Shakespearean  meditations  is  their 
moralizing,  doubtless  due  in  part  to  the  preceding  and  con- 
temporary vogue  of  the  morality  play.  Almost  every  morality, 
early  and  late,  contains  monologic  sermonizings.  Then,  too, 
the  British  temperament  has  a  deep-rooted  sense  of  right  and 
wrong,  indicated  in  all  of  its  literature.  Add  to  this  the  per- 
vasive influence  of  the  Bible — especially  of  Ecclesiastes,  the 
Psalms,  the  Proverbs  and  the  soliloquies  of  Job — and  the 
moralizing  tendency  in  Shakespeare's  soliloquies  seems  inevit- 
able. It  is  noteworthy,  however,  that  his  predecessors  devote 
considerably  less  attention  to  moralizing  than  he ;  and  there- 
fore the  truths  which  his  monologists  utter,  as  well  as  the 
manner  of  the  utterance  may  be  attributed  in  large  measure  to 
the  dramatist's  sense  of  proportion  in  ethics  as  well  as 
aesthetics. 

^^  Cf.   Julius  Caesar,   III,   2,   266;   Measure   for  Measure,   II,   4,    17,    30; 
Macbeth,  I,  5,  32. 


149 

The  classical  drama  had  made  its  contribution  to  the  aesthe- 
tic aspect  of  moralizing.  Particularly  in  Sophocles,  the  serene 
statement  of  elemental  truths  as  imaged  in  nature  presages 
Shakespeare's  philosophizing  on  kindred  themes.  For 
example,  the  moralizing  of  Ajax:  "Dread  things  and  things 
most  potent  bow  to  office ;  thus  it  is  that  snow-strewn  winter 
gives  place  to  fruitful  summer ;  and  thus  night's  weary  round 
makes  room  for  day  with  her  white  steeds  to  kindle  light ;  and 
the  breath  of  dreadful  winds  can  allow  the  groaning  sea  to 
slumber ;  and,  like  the  rest,  almighty  Sleep  looses  whom  he  has 
bound,  nor  holds  with  a  perpetual  grasp. "-^ 

The  Senecan  conception  of  unhappy  majesty  inspires  a 
soliloquy  inserted  by  Kinwelmersh  in  "Jocasta"  (I,  2,  1-18), 
the  idea  being  borrowed  from  Ludovico  Dolce.^^  The  same 
thought  animates  the  moralizing  of  the  King  in  the 
"  Sakuntala "  of  Kalidasa,^"  as  well  as  many  Shakespearean 
soliloquies.  Kinwelmersh,  philosophizing  on  the  trouble 
underlying  the  apparent  splendor  of  court  life,  mentions 

"  The   chambers    huge,    the    goodly   gorgeous    beddes, 
The  gilted  roofes  embowde  with  curious  worke  " — 

details  somewhat  suggestive  of  Shakespeare's  "perfumed 
chambers  of  the  great "  and  the  "  canopies  of  costly  state  " 
("Henry  IV,"  Part  II,  III,  i,  11-12). 

The  sad  lot  of  the  king,  his  inability  to  sleep  and  to  enjoy  the 
life  of  the  humble,  is  a  favorite  text  for  moralizing  in  the  early 
work  of  Shakespeare.  Henry  the  Sixth  envies  the  simple  life 
of  the  shepherd : 

"  Gives  not  the  hawthorn-bush  a  sweeter  shade 
To  shepherds  looking  on  their  silly  sheep. 
Than   doth   a  rich   embroider'd  canopy 
To  kings  that  fear  their  subjects'  treachery?" 

(Part  III,  II,  s,  42-45.) 

The  thought,  elaborated  by  Henry  (11,  21-54)  is  converted  by 
Warwick  to  the  theme  of  Ecclesiastes :  "Why,  what  is  pomp, 

^  Tragedies,  translated  by  R.  C.  Jebb,  p.  197. 
^  Jocasta,  edited  by  J.  W.  Cunliffe,  p.  156. 
^Translation  of  Monier  Williams,  p.  iii. 


150 

rule,  reign,  but  earth  and  dust?"  (V,  2,  27),  and  Brackenbury 
of  "  Richard  the  Third "  has  a  similar  conviction :  "  Princes 
have  but  their  titles  for  their  glories"  (I,  4,  78).  Ceremony, 
says  Henry  the  Fifth  in  striking  phrase,  in  the  sole  distinction 
of  the  great  (IV,  i,  255-301).  Like  Henry  the  Sixth,  he 
laments  the  '  infinite  heart's-ease  which  kings  neglect  and 
private  men  enjoy.'  Instead  of  being  colored  with  pastoral 
idealism,  however,  his  conception  of  the  poor  man's  bliss  is 
rather  tinctured  with  a  satiric  realism,  evidenced  in  the  refer- 
ence to 

"  The  wretched  slave, 
Who  with  a  body  fill'd  and  vacant  mind 
Gets   him   to    rest,   cramm'd   with   distressful   bread." 

The  inability  of  majesty  to  sleep,  remarked  by  Henry  the  Sixth 
and  Henry  the  Fifth,  is  the  motif  of  that  beautiful  soliloquy  by 
Henry  the  Fourth : 

"  How  many  thousand  of  my  poorest  subjects 
Are  at  this  hour  asleep"  (Part  II,  III,  i,  4-31). 

All  three  deplore  the  inconsistency  of  Sleep  in  favoring  the 
loathsome  bed  rather  than  the  kingly  couch,  but  Henry  the 
Fourth's  imagination  is  stirred  to  the  noblest  utterance.  In  the 
rush  of  metaphor  attendant  upon  the  vision  of  the  sleeping  sea- 
boy,  philosophizing  is  forgotten  until  the  concluding  thought : 

"  Uneasy  lies  the  head  that  wears  a  crown." 

After  1599,  the  theme  of  unhappy  majesty  disappears  from 
the  Shakespearean  soliloquy,  and  it  is  succeeded  in  the  next 
few  years  by  occasional  moralizings  on  love.  Claudio  of 
"  Much  Ado  "  laments  that 

"  Friendship  is  constant  in  all  other  things 
Save  in  the  office  and  affairs  of  love"  (II,  i,  182-183). 

Helena  of  "  All's  Well "  ponders  on  the  text,  "  Amor  vincit 
omnia  " : 

"  The  mightiest  space  in  fortune  nature  brings 
To  join  like  likes  and  kiss  like  native  things"  (I,  i,  237-8), 


161 


and  the  Countess,  observing  Helena's  passion,  remarks; 

«  It  is  the  sign  and  seal  of  nature's  truth.  ^^  ,,,,,„  „, 

When  love's  strong  passion  is  impress  d  ra  youth     (I,  3.  .38  9)- 

A  more  sophisticated  view  of  courtship  occurs  »  C«ssida's 
well-known  "  Women  are  angels  wooing     (I,  3.  i°^  f^  >: 

l^he  sententious  observations  of  Shakespeare's  soh  oqui.er 
are  by  no  means  confined  to  the  subject  of  love.     Indeed,  the 
m  raLing  of  the  middle  period  of  the  Poet's  prod~    s 
rnncerned  with  a  variety  of  ethical  truisms.     Friar  Laurence, 
mustg  on  the  powerful  grace  of  plants,  herbs  and  stones 
Taws  some  interesting  conclusions  on  the  virtue  of  vice  and 
le  vicHf  virtue   (II,  3.  I7-^-)-    This  kind  of  chiasmus 
paradox    a   favorite  device  with   Elizabethans,  reappears   in 
Twelfth  Night"  when  Viola  comments  on  the    oUy  0    wis- 
dom  and  the   wisdom   of    folly    (HI,    i,   74-75)-        J"'™' 
Caesar"  abounds  in  proverbs  on  conduct: 

"  Who  80  firm  that  cannot  be  seduc'd?  "  (I,  2,  3"6)  1 

..Uis  *e  bright  day  that  brings  forth  the  adder  and  that  eraves 

•wary  walking"  (II,  i,  is)  '. 
"The  abuse  of  greatness  is,  when  it  disjoins 
Remorse  from  power"   (II,  i,  18-19)- 

Brutus  is  addicted  to  lengthier  moralizings  in  the  famous  pas- 
sages on  Ambition  (II,  i,  19-27),  Conspiracy  (11.  77-85),  and 
^' fetween  the  acting  of  a  dreadful  thing  and  the  first  — 
(1,  61-69).  The  Duke  of  ''Measure  ^^  "e  ha  a 
meditation  in  the  form  of  a  gnomic  poem  (III,  2,  275  290), 
containing  two  thoughts  appearing  as  epigrams: 


and 


"  He  who  the  sword  of  heaven  will  bear 
Should  be  as  holy  as  severe," 

"  O,  what  may  man  within  him  hide,  ^^ 
Though  angel  on  the  outward  side !  " 


This  drama  contains  many  moral  epigrams:  Isabella's  on  the 
inisuiduct  •     (jj    .    T-yT-TV?")    and  Angelo  s  on  the 

despot's  power  to  sm  (II,  4,  171  '77),  a"Q      ^ 
temptation  "to  sin  in  loving  virtue"    (II,  2,   180-183),  the 
elDtv  Ivithority  of  place  and  form   (II,  4,   12-15),  and  the 
Xp'ess  resulting' from  sin  (IV,  4,  3^37),-  conviction 


152 

also  given  utterance  by  Lady  Macbeth  (III,  2,  4-7)  and  by 
Hamlet's  mother  (IV,  5,  19-20).  The  wages  of  sin  are  more 
profoundly  weighed  by  Hamlet's  uncle-father  in  his  assertion 
of  divine  judgment  (III,  3,  57-64).  His  "words  without 
thoughts  never  to  heaven  go"  (III,  3,  98)  has  become  as 
proverbial  as  Hamlet's  "Foul  deeds  will  rise"  (I,  2,  257). 
The  saying,  "Frailty,  thy  name  is  woman,"  (I,  2,  146)  it  is 
interesting  to  note,  has  counterparts  not  only  in  Virgil's 
"  Varium  et  mutabile  semper  femina,"  but  also  in  the  Sanskrit 
"  Mudra-Rakshasa,"  when  Rakshasa  soliloquizes,  "  Women 
are  as  unsteady  as  the  buds  that  float  in  air."^^ 
'  With  "  Hamlet "  there  appears  a  slight  change  in  the  tone 
and  form  of  the  moralizing.  The  ethical  attitude  becomes  in- 
tellectualized,  and  the  expression  of  the  thought  is  only  occa- 
sionally epigrammatic.  Except  for  the  few  proverbial  ex- 
pressions noted,  the  ideas  of  the  soliloquies  of  "  Hamlet "  are 
so  deftly  woven  into  the  tragic  theme  that  they  cannot  be  set 
apart  as  philosophizings.  To  be  sure,  Hamlet's  "  What  a  piece 
of  work  is  man!"  (IV,  4,  33-39)  may  be  separated  from  the 
context,  but  nevertheless  it  is  a  spontaneous  observation  in 
which  blood  and  judgment  are  so  well  commingled  that  there  is 
not  a  trace  of  the  epigrammatic  quality.  Likewise  lago's  cool 
generalizations  on  the  inflammability  of  jealousy  (III,  3,  322- 
324,  326-329)  are  marked  by  a  distinction  alien  to  the  pro- 
verbial utterance.  Lear's  "Take  physic,  pomp"  (III,  4,  33- 
36)  discloses  a  feeling  of  fraternity  characteristic  of  this  period 
of  the  author's  work.  The  same  idea  animates  Edgar's  rimed 
paraphrase  of  the  thought  that  misery  likes  company  (III,  6, 
109-114)  and  his  involved  philosophizing  on  the  blessings  of 
"the  lowest  and  most  dejected  thing  of  fortune"  (IV,  i,  3-6). 
The  change  from  the  epigrammatic  to  the  analytical  is  illu- 
strated by  Edmund's  ironic  dissertation  on  the  text,  "  The  fault 
is  not  in  our  stars  but  in  ourselves  that  we  are  underlings  " 
(I,  2,  128-145), — a  text  which  Helena  of  "All's  Well"  had 
thus  epitomized: 

"  Our  remedies  oft  in  ourselves  do  lie, 
Which   we   ascribe   to   heaven"    (I,    i,   231-232). 

^  Theater  of  the  Hindus,  Vol.  II,  p.  175. 


163 

Naturally,  proverbial  expressions  do  not  totally  disappear  from 
the  soliloquies  following  "  Hamlet."  Pericles,  for  example, 
ponders,  "One  sin,  I  know,  another  doth  provoke"  (I,  i,  137- 
142)  ;  yet  he  presently  philosophizes  on  "  the  passions  of  the 
mind"  which  are  conceived  by  fear  and  nourished  by  care  (I, 
2,  11-15).  Such  psychological  abstractions  are  frequent. 
Enobarbus  of  "  Antony  and  Cleopatra  "  observes  that  "  to  be 
furious  is  to  be  frighted  out  of  fear"  (III,  12,  195-196),  and 
Antony  comes  to  a  realization  that  human  desires  are  often 
regulated  by  their  opposites  (I,  2,  127-130).  Imogen,  the 
gentle  philosopher  of  "  Cymbeline,"  reverts  in  a  somewhat  epi- 
grammatic vein  to  the  democratic  interests  of  "  Lear,"  noting, 
like  Edgar,  the  blessing  of  the  humble  (I,  6,  7-9),  asserting 
that  "  falsehood  is  worse  in  kings  than  beggars,"  and  that 
"hardness  ever  of  hardiness  is  mother"  (III,  6,  13-14, 
19-22). 

In  the  latest  group  of  plays,  the  intellectual  attitude  is  deeply 
tinged  with  misanthropy.  A  servant  of  "  Timon  of  Athens  " 
moralizes  on  man  politic,  concluding  with  the  ironic  jest,  "  Who 
cannot  keep  his  wealth  must  keep  his  house"  (III,  3,  42).^^* 
Flavius  of  the  same  piece  comments  on  the  wretchedness 
brought  by  riches  (IV,  2,  30-36),^^^  and  Timon  morosely  phi- 
losophizes on  the  hollowness  of  social  distinctions  (IV,  3,  3- 
13),  the  universality  of  flattery  (11.  13-20),  and  the  baneful 
power  of  gold  (11.  26-41).  Equally  cynical  are  Cloten's  solilo- 
quizing on  the  same  evil  authority  of  gold  (II,  3,  72-78). 
Coriolanus  satirically  rails  against  custom  (II,  3,  124-130)  and 
bitterly  observes  the  frailty  of  friendship  (IV,  4,  12-22).  The 
bitterness  of  Wolsey's  farewell  in  "  Henry  the  Eighth "  is 
tempered  with  resignation,  as  he  laments  the  instability  of  fame 
(III,  2,  352-358)  and  the  fickle  favor  of  princes  (11.  366-372)  ; 
but  the  change  of  mood  is  doubtless  due  to  a  change  of  author- 
ship, these  soliloquies  probably  being  the  work  of  John 
Fletcher. 

Thus  the  moralizing  swings  a  full  circle,  beginning  with  the 
conventionally  sympathetic  attitude  toward  the  unhappiness  of 

^^  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  soliloquies  are  spurious — see  E. 
H.  Wright's  "  The  Authorship  of  Timon  of  Athens,"  pp.  42,  46 — whereas 
Timon's  soliloquies  are  undoubtedly  Shakespeare's. 


154 

monarchs,  but  soon  abandoning  these  long  and  ornamental 
speeches  for  sententious  and  epigrammatic  truisms  on  love  and 
ethics,  these  in  turn  giving  way  to  more  intimate  and  intellectual 
philosophizings  on  human  conduct,  and  these  supplanted  by  the 
bitterly  misanthropic  broodings  which  conclude  with  the  poign- 
ant lament  on  "  that  poor  man  that  hangs  on  princes'  favors !" 
How  far  these  moods  are  autobiographical  is  a  matter  of  specu- 
lation rather  than  investigation.  The  question  might  provoke 
debates  as  keen  as  those  which  have  raged  in  regard  to  the 
sonnets.  Unquestionably  the  moralizings  show  a  progress  in 
technic  as  well  as  in  thought.  The  conventional  and  the  ornate 
gradually  give  place  to  an  intensive  and  spontaneous  expression 
of  ideas. 

The  Workings  of  Conscience 
More  introspective  than  philosophical  generalization,  how- 
ever, is  the  depiction  of  the  working  of  conscience.    This  in  an 
old  function  of  the  soliloquy,  as  evidenced  by  "  The  Toy-Cart," 
when  Sarvilaka  ponders, 

"  Thus  guilty  conscience  makes  me  fear,  for  man 
Is  ever  frightened  by  his  own  ofFences."^- 

The  translator  observes  that  the  passage  might  be  rendered, 
"  Thus  conscience  does  made  cowards  of  us  all,"  but,  in  that 
case,  "  conscience "  would  not  have  Hamlet's  meaning  of 
"thinking."  The  modern  significance  of  "conscience"  occurs 
in  Shakespeare,  however, — doubly  redoubled  in  Richard  the 
Third's  terrified  cry, 

"  My  conscience  hath  a  thousand  several   tongues 
And  every  tongue  brings  in  a  several  tale ; 
And  every  tale  condemns  me  for  a  villain"  (V,  3,  i93-i95)' 

Here  feeling  outweighs  thought;  nevertheless  it  is  often  diffi- 
cult to  distinguish  between  introspective  moralizing  and  the 
portrayal  of  conscience.  For  example,  the  pondering  of  Bru- 
tus on  the  interim  "  between  the  acting  of  a  dreadful  thing  and 
the  first  motion"  (H,  i,  63-69)  and  his  meditation  on  the 
shame  of  conspiracy  (11,  1,  77-85)  are  revelations  not  only 
of  his  philosophical  temperament  but  also  of  his  own  consci- 
ence at  work. 

"  Theater  of  the  Hindus,  Vol.  I,  p.  73. 


155 

On  the  other  hand,  Angelo's  pondering  preliminary  to  crime 
shows  a  disinct  consciousness  of  the  wickedness  of  his  designs 
(II,  2,  162-187).  One  sohloquy  is  entirely  devoted  to  the  pleas 
and  upbraidings  of  conscience,  ultimately  conquered  by  law- 
less passion.  His  next  meditation  continues  the  revelation  of 
"the  strong  and  swelling  evil  of  his  conception"  (II,  4,  1-17). 
Like  Claudius,  he  laments  that  heaven  has  his  empty  words. 
Finally  Angelo's  "This  deed  unshapes  me  quite"  (IV,  4, 22,  37) 
shows  his  realization  of  the  futility  of  violating  the  injunctions 
of  conscience : 

"  Alack,  when  once  our  grace  we  have  forgot, 
Nothing  goes  right ;  we  would,  and  we  would  not." 

The  same  mood  characterizes  Lady  Macbeth's  "  Nought's 
had,  all's  spent"  (III,  2,  4-7),  and  the  exclamation  of 
Hamlet's  mother, 

"  To  my  sick  soul,  as  sin's  true  nature  is. 
Each  toy  seems  prolog  to  some  great  amiss"  (IV,  s,  17-18). 

The  world-weariness  of  Macbeth  in  his  resignation  to  his 
empty  greatness  and  his  loveless  lot  (V,  3,  19-28)  eloquently 
bespeaks  the  workings  of  his  conscience.  It  is  a  sermon  in 
little,  psychologically  and  ethically  sound,  and  so  simply  phrased 
that  it  seems  the  welling  of  the  heart.  This  master  stroke 
Davenant  omitted  in  his  version  of  the  drama, — a  fact  indi- 
cating the  variability  of  human  judgment.  -. 
The  contrition  of  the  murderer,  implied  in  Macbeth's  lament,  \ 
is  clearly  depicted  in  that  of  the  King  of  "  Hamlet "  when  he 
is  attempting  to  pray  (III,  3,  36-72).  "O  my  offence  is  rank, 
it  smells  to  heaven" — every  syllable  seems  racked  with  pain. 
The  poignant  regret  of  the  murderer  is  not  a  new  theme  in  / 
English  soliloquy — it  occurs  as  early  as  the  Hegge  play  of  "  Noah 
and  Lamech  "^^ — ^but  nowhere  is  there  a  more  pathetic  revela- 
tion of  contrition.  Self-abnegation,  conviction  as  to  the  judg- 
ment of  heaven,  despair,  hope, — thus  is  the  conscience  of  the 
King  revealed  in  his  struggle  to  speak  to  his  Master.  The 
murderer's  repentance  is  also  disclosed  in  the  soliloquy  of 
Posthumus  (V,  I,  1-33),  but,  as  befits  the  piece  and  the  occa- 

^'  Manly,  Vol.  I,  p.  38,  H-  i90-i97- 


156 

sion,  his  laments  and  invocations  appear  more  rhetorical  and 
less  sincere  than  the  soliloquizings  of  Claudius. 

The  Debate 

The  philosophical  tone  of  the  moralizing  soliloquy  becomes 
intimately  introspective  in  the  depiction  of  the  workings  of 
conscience,  but  even  a  more  profound  impression  of  tense 
thinking  is  sometimes  produced  by  those  dramatic  meditations 
which  assume  the  form  of  debate.  .We  have  already  observed 
a  travesty  of  the  type  in  Launcelot  Gobbo's  colloquy  with  the 
fiend  and  his  conscience.^*  The  serious  presentation  of  argu- 
mentative reflection  most  closely  approaches  the  original  mean- 
ing of  soliloquy.  St.  Augustine,  who  coined  the  word  "  solil- 
oquy," applies  it  to  a  debate  between  "Augustinus"  and 
"  Ratio,"  and  in  King  Alfred's  preface  to  his  translation  called 
"Blossom-Gatherings  from  St.  Augustine,"  he  thus  expounds 
the  term:  "  The  books  are  called  Soliloquiorum,  that  is,  of  his 
mind's  musing  and  doubting;  how  his  Reason  answered  his 
Mind,  when  the  mind  doubted  about  anything,  or  wished  to 
know  anything  which  it  clearly  could  not  understand  before." 

Whether  or  not  to  commit  murder  is  the  chief  subject  on 
which  the  argumentative  soliloquizer  ponders  in  Shakespeare, 
— a  theme  doubtless  due  to  the  soliloquies  of  contemporary 
revenge  plays.  In  this  respect  Shakespeare  was  again  in  agree- 
ment with  his  fellow-dramatists.    Horestes  ponders, 

"  Shall  I  revenged  be 
Of  good  Kinge  Agamemnon's  death,  ye  goddes  declare  to  me ! 
Or  shall  I  let  the  adulterous  dame  styll  wallow  in  her  sin  ?  "'° 

In  the  opening  speech  by  the  protagonist  of  "  Hoffman,"  the 
soliloquizer,  like  Hamlet,  laments  his  "  tardy  aim  to  do  an  act 
which  justice  and  a  father's  death  excite."  The  soliloquizing 
Promos  of  "  Promos  and  Cassandra  "  debates  pro  and  con  the 
question,  "  Shall  Andrugio  live?"  deciding  in  the  negative^** 

The  theme  of  Hamlet's  broodings  is  foreshadowed  in  Shake- 
speare as  well  as  in  his  predecessors.    The  cogitation  of  Brutus 

**  See  ante,  p.  128. 

'^  Quellen,  edited  by  A.  Brandl,  p.  499. 

^  Six  Old  Plays,  edited  by  G.  Stevens,  Vol.  I,  p.  40. 


157 

on  the  assassination  of  Caesar  (II,  i)  and  Angelo's  pondering 
on  killing  Isabella's  brother  (II,  2,  175)  are  potentially  debates 
on  murder,  although  the  real  issue  is  obscured  by  lofty 
patriotism  in  the  one  case  and  by  a  consuming  passion  in  the 
other.  Criticism  has  recognized  Hamlet's  tendency  toward 
excessive  reflection,  but  it  has  not  stressed  the  fact  that  the 
underlying  motive  of  nearly  all  of  his  meditations  is  the  ques- 
tioning of  his  intention  to  kill  Claudius.  Two  soliloquies 
bring  the  issue  to  head.  One  (III,  3,  73-96)  begins  with  the 
determination,  "  now  I'll  do't,"  but  pauses  to  debate  the  effi- 
cacy of  revenge  at  such  a  moment,  the  thought  becoming 
involved  in  the  absurdities  of  medieval  theology  and  concluding 
with  a  postponement  of  the  act.  The  other  soliloquy  (IV,  4, 
32-66)  revives  the  question  of  vengeance.  His  analyses  of  his 
thoughts  and  feelings,  his  reasoning  on  the  reasons  which 
retard  and  spur  his  dull  revenge,  although  marshalled  as  an 
invincible  argument  arraigning  his  vacillation,  nevertheless 
portray  the  culmination  of  a  tremendous  internal  conflict. 

Macbeth  has  two  soliloquies  in  which  he  ponders  murder. 
In  the  first  (I,  7,  1-28),  he  weighs  the  consequences  of  his  deed 
in  this  life,  enumerating  the  reasons  for  refraining,  and  feebly 
opposing  these  glowing  arguments  with  "  only  vaulting  ambi- 
tion." The  other  soliloquy  (HI,  i,  48-72)  is  not  clearly 
argumentative,  nor  is  the  purpose  of  murder  frankly  stated 
until  the  ensuing  dialog;  yet  the  ideas  form  a  chain  of  thought 
pointing  toward  the  killing  of  Banquo.  Both  reveries,  couched 
in  resplendent  diction  and  daring  metaphor,  lay  bare  the 
mental  processes  of  the  villain,  drunk  with  sentimental  fear, 
pity  and  egoism.    The  figure  of 

"  Pity  like  a  naked  new-born  babe 
Striding  the  blast  " 

is  admirably  characterized  by  Mr.  Story^^  as  "  the  product  of 
an  unrestrained  imagination  which  exhausts  itself  in  the 
utterance." 

Even  Hamlet's  "To  be  or  not  to  be"  (HI,  i,  56-88),  plain 
as  is  the  implication  of  the  opening  phrase,  has  been  inter- 

"  Excursions  in  Art  and  Letters,  by  W.  W.  Story,  p.  256. 


158 

preted  by  the  practical  common  sense  of  Dr.  Johnson  and  the 
astute  scholarship  of  Professor  Lewis  as  another  illustration 
of  the  contemplation  of  murder :  "  Hamlet  is  thinking  not  of 
committing  suicide  but  of  actively  pursuing  his  revenge."^" 
Professor  Lewis,  who  ingeniously  champions  the  theory, 
admits,  however,  that  "  unless  we  are  misled  by  printers' 
omissions,  the  Hamlet  of  the  First  Quarto  is  certainly  medi- 
tating suicide."  The  transposition  of  the  soliloquy^*  and  the 
alterations  of  the  text  do  not  appear  to  warrant  the  complete 
change  of  meaning  and  therefore  we  shall  proceed  on  the 
assumption,  ratified  by  the  consensus  of  opinion  of  three  cen- 
turies, that  "  To  be  or  not  to  be "  debates  the  question  of 
self-slaughter. 

The  motive  is  not  a  new  one.  The  Sanskrit  drama,  which 
affords  precedents  for  practically  all  types  of  Shakespearean 
soliloquies,  is  no  exception  in  this  case,  as  both  the  "Uttara- 
Rama-Charitra  ""  and  the  "  Mudra-Rakshasa  "*°  contain  solil- 
oquizers who  contemplate  suicide  and  conclude  not  to  take  the 
step.  A  crude  predecessor  of  Hamlet's  meditation  is  found  in 
Hieronimo's  soliloquizing  in  "  The  Spanish  Tragedy  " : 

"This  way,  or  that  way?  soft  and  faire,  not  so! 
For  if  I  hang  or  kill  myselfe,  lets  know 
Who  will  revenge  Horatios  murther  then ! 
No,  no,  fie,  no!  pardon  me,  ile  none  of  that, —  "  (III,  12). 

and  he  flings  away  his  dagger  and  halter. 

Hamlet's  brooding  lacks  such  objective  illumination.  Indeed 
the  fact  that  a  totally  different  interpretation  of  the  theme  has 
been  maintained  with  an  appearance  of  plausibility  is  in  itself 
significant  of  its  subjectivity,  and  so  is  the  evidence  that  the 
meaning  of  nearly  every  line  has  been  vigorously  contested.*^ 
To  complete  the  paradox,  it  is  only  necessary  to  observe  that 
the  phrasing  is  simple  throughout,  the  thought  sequential  and 
the  general  import  transparently  clear.  Wherefore,  then,  the 
difficulty  in  specific  interpretation  ? 

**  Charlton  M.  Lewis,  The  Genesis  of  Hamlet,  p.  100  flF. 

'"  See  ante,  p.  35. 

*"  Theater  of  the  Hindus,  Vol.  I,  p.  342  ;  Vol.  II,  p.  234. 

"  Furness  Variorum  Edition  of  Hamlet,  Vol.  I,  pp.  204-215. 


159 

The  soliloquy  is  profoundly  introspective,  the  form  of  debate 
adding  intensity  to  the  musing.  The  question  is  tersely  put  (1. 
56)  and  graphically  expanded  (57-60)  ;  then  the  advocate  for 
the  negative  makes  a  moving  plea  for  non-existence  (60-64)  > 
the  rest  of  the  colloquy  is  devoted  to  the  reply  of  the  affirma- 
tive, who  begins  tentatively,  apparently  granting  his  opponent's 
point,  but  proceeds  with  increasing  conviction  to  develop  a  line 
of  reasoning  showing,  not  why  man  should  be,  but  why  he  is ; 
the  conclusion  (84-88)  terminates  the  argument  of  the  affirma- 
tive and  apparently  indicates  the  decision  of  the  judge.^^,,.-— 

Albeit  the  soliloquy  lends  itself  to  analysis  in  terms  of  argu- 
mentation, its  expression  is  tinged  with  an  elusive  quality  giv- 
ing the  impression  of  a  melancholy  and  pensive  mood.  The 
clarity  is  of  thought  rather  than  of  articulate  speech.  Feelings 
and  ideas  are  indelibly  transmitted,  but,  as  to  their  precise 
meaning,  doctors  disagree.  The  impression  of  thoughts  with- 
out words  was  destroyed  for  Charles  Lamb  by  hearing  the  solil- 
oquy "  spouted,"  "  handled  and  pawed  about  by  declamatory 
boys  and  men."*^  The  commentator  Bailey  was  so  imbued 
with  the  introspective  attitude  of  the  soliloquizer  that  he 
objected  to  Hamlet's  word  "say"  (1.  61)  as  an  interruption  to 
the  train  of  thought;*^  and  even  the  hard-headed  Dr.  Johnson 
comprehended  this  soliloquy  as  a  conventional  symbol  for 
revealing  mental  processes :  "  This  celebrated  soliloquy,  burst- 
ing from  a  man  distracted  with  contrariety  of  desire,  and  over- 
whelmed with  the  magnitude  of  his  own  purposes,  is  connected 
rather  in  the  speaker's  mind  than  on  his  tongue."**  Herein  is 
the  genius  of  the  speech;  so  worded  that  it  appears  the  out- 
pouring of  a  tortured  spirit,  it  quickens  imagination  and 
sympathy  and  awakens  a  response  of  mind  and  soul. 

The  Revelation  of  Insanity 
The  line  separating  introspection  from  insanity  is  difficult  to 
determine,   as   evidenced  by   the  voluminous   controversy   on 

*^  The  Works  of  Charles  and  Mary  Lamb,  edited  by  E.  V.  Lucas,  Vol.  I, 
p.  199. 

**  Furness  Variorum  Hamlet,  Vol.  I,  p.  209. 
*^  Furness  Variorum  Hamlet,  Vol.  I,  p.  204. 


160 

Hamlet's  madness.  It  is  unnecessary  to  revive  the  question 
other  than  to  state  the  modern  attitude  on  the  subject,  suc- 
cinctly set  forth  by  Professor  Tolman :  "  I  believe  that  the 
debate  on  this  topic  concerns  largely  the  use  of  terms,  the  defi- 
nition of  madness;  and  that  it  often  indicates  no  fundamental 
difference  between  the  opposing  sides.  Hamlet  is  sane  enough 
to  be  the  responsible  hero  of  a  great  tragedy.  He  is  not  sane 
enough  to  be  pronounced  rational  by  the  experts :  few  are."'*^ 
■^  If  there  is  any  point  of  the  tragedy  at  which  Hamlet  loses 
control  of  his  faculties,  it  is  after  the  revelations  made  by  the 
ghost.  In  the  ensuing  soliloquy  (I,  5,  92-112)  and  dialog, 
Hamlet's  wild  and  whirling  words  indicate  a  reaction  after 
tense  strain  which  might  be  diagnosed  as  temporary  disturb- 
ance of  the  mental  faculties.  This  soliloquy  is  used  by  critics 
as  evidence  of  sanity  and  insanity.*'' — a  fact  which  suggests 
that  the  speaker  is  on  the  verge  of  an  emotional  collapse. 

"  O  all  you  host  of  heaven!  O  earth!  What  else? 
And  shall  I  couple  hell  ?  " — 

such  impotent  ragings  show  his  distraction,  but  with  "  O,  fie ! 
Hold,  my  heart!"  he  regains  a  measure  of  self-control,  which, 
by  focusing  his  attention  on  the  parting  injunction  of  the 
ghost  (11.  95,  97,  III),  he  retains  to  the  end  of  the  speech. 

The  soliloquy  is  often  used  in  Elizabethan  drama  to  suggest 
the  border  between  sanity  and  insanity.  The  ragings  of  the 
vengeful  Hieronimo  in  "  The  Spanish  Tragedy "  occasionally 
break  the  bonds  of  reason.  In  Greene's  "  Orlando  Furioso," 
the  monolog,  "  Woods,  trees,  leaves ;  leaves,  trees,  woods, "*^ 
reveals  the  hero's  madness,  while  two  soliloquies*^  indicate  his 
dawning  reason,  as  he  discourses  on  his  dreams  and  forthwith 
recovers  from  his  lunacy.  So  Lear's  "  Blow,  winds,  and  crack 
your  cheeks!"  (Ill,  2,  1-9,  14-25)  depicts  such  turbulent  emo- 
tion  that   it  may  be   regarded   as   the   first   sign   of   insanity, 

"  The  Views  about  Hamlet,  by  Albert  H.  Tolman,  p.  14. 

"  Furness  Variorum  Hamlet,  Vol.  I,  p.  107  (Hunter);  Vol.  II,  pp.  197 
(Boswell),  199  (Farren),  200,  208  (Dr.  Bucknell),  216  (Dr.  Kellogg),  224 
(Dr.  Stearns),  225  (Arthur  Meadows),  230  (G.  H,  Lewes). 

*'  Plays  and  Poems  of  Robert  Greene,  edited  by  J.  C.  Collins,  Vol.  I,  p.  245. 

"  U.  s.,  p.  256. 


161 

although   his   next   sohloquy    (III,   4,   26-36)    is   thoroughly 
rational. 

A  monolog  must  contain  an  element  of  consciousness  if  it  is 
to  be  considered  a  soliloquy.  Accordingly  the  ravings  of 
Ophelia  (IV,  5)  and  the  somniloquy  of  Lady  Macbeth  (V,  i) 
do  not  come  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  discussion.  There 
is  a  form  of  monolog,  however,  the  distinguishing  feature  of 
which  is  the  fact  that  the  speaker,  for  the  moment,  is  uncon- 
scious of  the  presence  of  others  on  the  stage.  This  soliloquy 
we  may  term  the  "  trance." 

The  Trance 
The  trance  is  so  called  because  the  soliloquizer  appears  en- 
tranced by  his  meditations  and  totally  oblivious  to  the  people 
near  him.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  evident  that  the  soliloquizer 
is  keenly  alive  to  his  own  thoughts, — a  state  of  afifairs  not 
applicable  to  the  monologs  of  Ophelia  (IV,  5)  and  Lady  Mac- 
beth (V,  i).  The  trance  often  occurs  in  Greek  tragedy  when 
the  soliloquizer  tells  his  tale  to  the  air,  unconscious  of  the 
proximi'ty  of  attendant  or  chorus.  There  are  two  notable 
instances  of  the  device  in  the  drama  immediately  preceding 
Shakespeare :  one  at  the  close  of  Peek's  "  David  and  Bethsabe," 
where  David,  oblivious  to  his  wife  and  his  friends  and  their 
train,  communes  with  the  spirit  of  his  beloved  Absolon  ■*^ 
the  other  is  the  exquisitely  poignant,  "  Black  is  the  beauty  of 
the  brightest  day,"  uttered  by  Tamburlaine  in  the  presence  of 
his  sick  wife,  their  three  sons,  three  kings  and  three  physicians 

(Part  II,  11,4). 

Macbeth's  revery  on  the  predictions  of  the  weird  sisters, 
forgetful  of  the  presence  of  Banquo,  Ross  and  Angus  (I,  3, 
116-117,  127-129,  143-144,  146-147)  is  a  slightly  different 
kind  of  trance,  since  the  isolation,  no  less  complete  than  that  of 
David  and  of  Tamburlaine,  is  produced  by  a  thoughtful  rather 
than  a  passionate  mood.  Richard  the  Third's  meditation,  dis- 
regarding the  importunities  of  Buckingham  (IV,  2,  98-104, 
106-110)  does  not  indicate  such  complete  absorption,  but  it 
may  be  styled  a  trance.     Lear's  ravings  just  noted   (III,  2) 

*»  Manly,  Vol.  II,  p.  486,  11.  257-276. 
12 


162 

afford  an  excellent  illustration  of  the  trance.  As  pointed  out 
by  Delius,  "  the  company  of  the  Fool,  with  whom  he  enters  on 
the  heath,  is  not  to  be  considered  as  company,  since  Lear  him- 
self takes  no  notice  of  him :  Lear  is  alone  and  feels  himself 
the  more  so,  abandoned  to  the  storm  and  violence  of  the  unre- 
strained elements,  which  he  dares  to  outbid  with  the  storm  and 
violence  of  his  soul."^'' 

There  are  many  instances  in  Shakespeare  and  his  contem- 
poraries of  momentary  trances  in  the  midst  of  dialog, — for  ex- 
ample, Imogen's  apostrophe  to  Posthumus,  interrupting  her 
conversation  with  Pisanio  (III,  4,  90-98).  Trances  over  the 
dead  are  likewise  numerous :  Cleopatra's  frenzied  appeal  to 
Antony  (IV,  15,  63-68),  Othello's  passionate  adieu  to  Desde- 
mona  (V,  2,  358-359),  and  Horatio's  tender  farewell  to  Hamlet 
(V,  2,  370-371)  are  all  soliloquies  uttered  in  the  midst  of  a 
crowd.  But  these  outbursts  belong  to  the  realm  of  the  pas- 
sions rather  than  of  thought. 

Depiction  of  the  Passions 
In  the  soliloquy,  as  in  every  human  document,  there  is  a  nat- 
ural intermingling  of  thought  and  feeling,  and  therefore  the 
segregation  of  thought  and  passion  is  an  arbitrary  arrangement 
for  convenience  of  discussion.  Grief,  love,  jealousy,  revenge, 
hate  and  fear, — these  six  passions  conspicuously  animate  the 
Shakespearean  soliloquy,  and  these  we  shall  briefly  note. 

Grief 
Grief  is  the  motive  force  of  the  most  ancient  soliloquies  of 
tragedy.  Aeschylus'  Prometheus,  bound  to  the  rocks,  bewails 
his  plight,  and,  in  general,  lamentation  is  the  usual  mode  of 
expression  in  the  soliloquies  of  the  "  tragic  triad  of  immortal 
fames."  Seneca  preserves  the  tradition  and  the  early  Eliza- 
bethans follow  his  lead.  Claudia  of  "  Gismond  of  Salerne  " 
is  assigned  a  soliloquy  (III,  2,  1-50)  which  is  a  literary  exer- 
cise   in    lamentation,    borrowed    from    snatches    of    Seneca's 

"  Nicolaus  Delius,  "  Uber  den  Monolog  in  Shakespeare's  Dramen," 
Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  Vol.  XVI,  p.  i6. 


163 

"  Phaedra,""  and  opened  and  concluded  with  favorite  expres- 
sions of  Chaucer's.  Less  elaboration  and  more  sincerity  char- 
acterizes some  of  the  soliloquies  in  the  beginnings  of  English 
drama, — for  example,  the  lamentation  of  Mary  Magdalene  at 
the  tomb,  which  opens  the  Coventry  play  of  "  Christ  appearing 
to  Mary,"  and  the  soliloquies  with  which  Everyman  mourns 
the  departure  of  his  companions. 

A  more  personal  note  of  suffering  is  sounded  in  the  Shake- 
spearean lamentation.  Hamlet's  "  O,  that  this  too  too  solid 
flesh  would  melt"  (I,  2,  129-159)  seems  the  quintessence  of 
world-weariness,  while  equally  heart-felt  is  Ophelia's  gentle 
plaint,  "  O,  what  a  noble  mind  is  here  o'er-thrown !  "  (III,  i, 
158-169).  More  sentimental  and  ornamental  is  the  dying 
speech  of  Enobarbus,  who  lays  bare  his  heart 

"  Which,  being  dried  with  grief,  will  break  to  powder. 
And  finish  all  foul  thoughts"  (IV,  9,  17-18). 

Death  soliloquies  and  lamentations  over  the  dead^-  depict 
grief  in  varying  degrees  of  intensity.  Wolsey's  farewells  to 
his  greatness  (HI,  2,  222-227,  350-372)  reveal  sorrow  tem- 
pered by  resignation. 

Love 
A  frequent  form  of  the  lament  is  the  lover's  complaint, 
charmingly  expressed  in  the  "  Sakuntala "  of  Kalidasa,^^  and 
poignantly  uttered  by  Rostand's  Cyrano  underneath  the  bal- 
cony (III,  9).  In  the  early  eighteenth  century,  the  Earl  of 
Mulgrave  bewailed  the  fact  that 

"  Our  lovers,  talking  to  themselves,  for  want 
Of  friends,  make  all  the  Pit  their  Confidant."^ 

Every  age  attests  the  popularity  of  this  type  of  soliloquy,  but 
particularly  in  the  renaissance  it  flowers  in  tragedy,  comedy, 
romance,  sonnet  and  novella.  Accordingly  the  extraordinary 
dexterity,  variety,   warmth   and   color   of   the   soliloquies   of 

"  J.  W.  Cunliffe,  "  Gismond  of  Salerne,"  Pub.  of  Mod.  Lang.  As.,  New 
Series,  Vol.  XIV,  No.  2,  p.  452. 
°-  See  ante,  p.  76. 

"Translation  of  Monier  Williams,  pp.  55,  73. 
^*  An  Essay  on  Poetry,  London^  1717,  P-  308. 


164 

Shakespearean  lovers  is  explicable  in  part  as  a  culmination  of 
one  aspect  of  the  renaissance  movement  in  England. 

The  caprice  of  Protean  love  is  depicted  in  "  The  Two  Gen- 
tlemen of  Verona"  (II,  4,  191-214;  II,  6,  1-26).  Valentine's 
"And  why  not  death  rather  than  living  torment?"  (Ill,  i,  170- 
187)  illustrates  the  juggling  of  phrase  and  fancy  popular  in 
the  contemporary  plaint  of  the  love-sick  swain;  while  his  "O 
thou  that  dost  inhabit  in  my  breast"  (V,  4,  7-12)  has  the  con- 
ventional forest  setting.  Likewise  the  sonneteering  lovers  of 
"  Love's  Labor's  Lost  "  (IV,  3)  have  the  park  as  a  background, 
and  Orlando  hangs  his  verses  on  the  trees  and  carves  his  sweet- 
heart's name  in  the  bark  (III,  2,  i-io). 

Aaron's  passion  mounts  with  the  rising  sun  (II,  i,  1-24)  and 
Romeo's  imagination  is  set  aflame  with  the  fancy  that  Juliet 
is  the  sun  (II,  2,  2-25).  Then  he  likens  her  to  "a.  winged 
messenger  of  heaven"  (II,  2,  26-32),  bewails  the  absence  of 
her  light  (11.  156-158)  and  wishes  her  a  lover-like  "Good 
night"  (11.  187-188).  Troilus,  musing,  also  pictures  his  love 
by  aid  of  resplendent  imagery :  "  Her  bed  is  India ;  there  she 
lies,  a  pearl"  (I,  i,  103-107),  and  his  passion  takes  fire  in 
the  soliloquies,  "  I  am  giddy ;  expectation  whirls  me  round " 
(III,  2,  19-30)  and  "Even  such  a  passion  doth  embrace  my 
bosom"  (III,  2,  37-41).  Antony's  passion  for  Cleopatra 
transcends  the  death  which  momentarily  separates  them : 

"  Where  souls  do  couch  on  flowers,  we'll  hand  in  hand, 
And  with  our  sprightly  port  make  the  ghosts  gaze  "  (IV,  14,  51-2). 

Shakespeare's  heroines  are  not  less  reticent  about  admitting 
their  love  in  soliloquy.  Julia,  fingering  the  scraps  of  the  letter 
from  Proteus,  discloses  her  passion  for  him  (I,  2,  104-129). 
The  same  warmth  of  young  affection  is  depicted  in  Juliet's 
anxiety  over  the  delay  of  the  Nurse  (II,  5,  1-17),  while  her 
"  Gallop  apace,  you  fiery-footed  steeds  "  (111,2, 1-31)  bespeaks 
in  poetic  symbols  a  flaming  ardor  for  her  mate.  "  Here  we 
find,"  observes  Delius,  "  suggestions  which  could  be  fittingly 
made  only  in  soliloquy, — suggestions  which  would  scarcely  have 
been  in  place  in  conversation  with  the  Nurse  or  with  Romeo. "°' 

°°  Nicolaus  Delius,  Uber  den  Monolog  in  Shakespeare's  Dramen,  Vol. 
XVI,  p.  5. 


165 

Thus  is  evidenced  another  use  of  the  sohloquy, — the  frank 
portrayal  of  a  woman's  love  for  a  man,  a  revelation  which 
might  seem  immodest  in  dialog,  but  one  nevertheless  necessary 
to  the  exposition.  Thus  Beatrice  (III,  i,  107-116),  Olivia  (I, 
5,  308-317),  Cressida  (I,  2,  308-321)  and  Helena  of  "All's 
Well"  (I,  I,  93-109)  reveal  their  love. 

Jealousy 
Love  is  tinged  with  jealousy  in  the  soliloquies  of  Julia  (IV, 
4, 184,210)  and  of  Helena  of  "A  Midsummer-Night's  Dream" 
(I,  I,  226-251).  The  soliloquies  which  actually  depict  the 
ravages  of  jealousy,  however,  are  those  of  husbands  maddened 
by  groundless  suspicions  of  their  wives, — a  theme  which  Shake- 
speare manipulates  for  comic,  tragic,  and  romantic  effects. 
"Who  says  this  is  improvident  jealousy?"  cries  Ford  (II,  2, 
301),  and  the  laughter  of  the  audience  responds  to  his  ragings.^^ 
The  motive  is  handled  with  tragic  sincerity  in  the  broodings  of 
Othello,  one  soliloquy  suggesting  the  beginnings  of  his  jealous 
fancy  (III,  3,  260-277)  and  another,  the  famous  "It  is  the 
cause,  it  is  the  cause,  my  soul"  (V,  2,  1-22)  marking  the  cul- 
mination of  the  passion  with  the  sorrowful  determination  to 
murder  the  beloved.  Here  again,  as  Delius^"  points  out,  it  is 
only  by  means  of  soliloquy  that  Othello's  extenuation  is,  in  a 
measure,  effected.  Very  different  is  the  blind  fury  of  Antony 
when  he  believes  Cleopatra  in  league  with  Caesar  (IV,  12, 
39-49)  ;  and  the  frenzy  of  Posthumus  manifests  itself  with 
romantic  abandon  in  railings  against  womankind,  pierced  with 
the  cry,  "Vengeance!  vengeance!"  (II,  5,  1-35). 

Revenge 
In  the  same  romantic  key,  love,  hatred  and  revenge  are  the 
mixed  motives  of  Cloten's  soliloquy  (III,  5,  70-80).  Revenge 
is  a  favorite  theme  in  Senecan  and  Elizabethan  tragedy.^® 
Hieronimo  of  "  The  Spanish  Tragedy,"  for  example,  has  seven 
soliloquies  in  which  he  usually  declares  vengeance  with  violent 

^  See  ante,  p.  117. 

■"U.S.,  p.  15. 

°*  See  ante,  pp.  6,  11. 


166 

insistence,  never  questioning  his  right  to  kill  the  object  of  his 
hatred.  We  have  observed  Hamlet's  ponderings  on  the  sub- 
ject. Occasionally  he  thirsts  for  vengeance  with  the  theatrical 
fervor  of  his  predecessors.  There  is  no  vacillation  in  the  solil- 
oquy in  which  he  swears  never  to  forget  the  ghost's  injunction 
(I,  5,  92-112).  "  O,  Vengeance!  "  he  cries  at  another  moment 
of  intense  feeling  (II,  2,  610),  and  his  last  words  in  soliloquy 
are: 

"  O,  from  this  time  forth, 
My  thoughts  be  bloody,  or  be  nothing  worth!  "  (IV,  4,  65-66). 

Hatred 
The  histrionic  curse  of  Antony  over  the  body  of  Caesar  (III, 
I,  258-275)  implies  vengeance,  but  the  prophetic  tone  out- 
weighs the  personal.  Hatred  rather  than  revenge  is  the  domi- 
nant note, — by  no  means  a  new  one  in  monologic  declamation. 
The  rhetorical  extravagances  of  Senecan  soliloquizers  were 
preceded  in  England  by  the  ragings  of  Herod  in  the  pageant 
wagon  and  in  the  street  also : 

"  I  rent !  I  rave !  and  now  run  I  wode ! 
A  that  these  velen  trayturs  hath  mard  this  my  mode !  "^ 

Violent  feeling  and  grandiloquent  expression  reach  a  culmina- 
tion in  Antony's  theatrical  imprecation.  Equally  vehement  are 
two  curses  in  "  Timon  "  hurled  at  the  character  just  departed 
(III,  I,  54-66;  III,  5,  104-117).  Timon's  long  and  bitter  curse 
on  Athens  and  its  inhabitants  (IV,  i,  1-4 1)  is  a  study  in  the 
malignity  of  hatred,  and  so,  in  a  brief  form,  is  Caliban's  spite- 
ful cursing  of  Prospero  (II,  2,  1-3). 

With  no  less  rhetorical  flourish  but  with  greater  intensity, 
hatred  is  depicted  in  the  soliloquy  of  the  villain.  We  have 
already  examined  the  villain's  soliloquy  as  a  means  of  exposi- 
tion;"'' as  a  revelation  of  passion  it  is  equally  suggestive. 
Gloucester's  malignity  directs  itself  toward  anyone  who  chances 
to  be  in  the  path  of  his  ambition :  "  Clarence,  thy  turn  is  next, 
and  then  the  rest,"  he  gleefully  observes  in  "  The  Third  Part 
of  Henry  the  Sixth"  (V,  7, 90).    Not  so  much  personal  spleen, 

^^  Manly,  Vol.  I,  p.  147. 
*"  See  ante,  p.  60. 


167 

however,  as  diabolical  joy  in  the  game  enlivens  his  utterance. 
Animated  by  an  ambition  similar  to  Gloucester's,  Lady  Mac- 
beth's  broodings  are  less  specific  as  to  the  object  of  her  machi- 
nations, and  her  sinister  mood  is  far  removed  from  his  fiendish 
levity.  Fired  by  a  single  vicious  passion  which  expresses  itself 
in  lurid  apostrophes,  her  soliloquies  (I,  5,  1-31,  39-55)  are 
elementally  akin  to  the  incantations  of  Seneca's  Medea  (IV,  2). 
Of  all  Shakespeare's  soliloquizing  villains,  however,  none  is 
more  downright  in  his  expression  of  personal  hatred  nor  more 
convincing  in  the  disclosure  of  his  passion  than  lago.  The 
brevity,  simplicity  and  candor  of  his  plottings  add  touches  of 
realism.  Thought  is  suggested — "  How,  how  ? — Let's  see.  .  .  , 
It  is  engendered"  (I,  3,  400,  409)  ;  but  back  of  the  cogitation 
is  the  malign  impulse — "  I  hate  the  Moor  "  (I,  3,  392) .  Again, 
a  mingling  of  thought  and  passion  is  suggested  by  the  asser- 
tion, '"Tis  here,  but  yet  confus'd"  (II,  i,  319).  lago's  solilo-' 
quies  indicate  a  climactic  development  of  passion.  Beginning 
with  a  clear  statement  of  his  hatred  and  the  reasons  therefor, 
together  with  a  confused  purpose  to  hatch  evil,  presently  his 
scheming  becomes  articulate,  while  his  imagination  is  stirred 
by  the  weaving  of  "  the  net  that  shall  enmesh  them  all "  (II,  3, 
342-368).  Finally,  intoxicated  by  the  artistic  perfection  of 
his  poisonous  designs,  he  reveals  his  exultation  in  burning 
imagery  which  culminates,  with  the  approach  of  the  object  of 
his  hatred,  in  that  direful  prophecy, 

"  Not  poppy,  nor  mandragora, 
Nor  all  the  drowsy  syrups  of  the  world 
Shall  ever  medicine  thee  to  that  sweet  sleep 
Which  thou  ow'dst  yesterday"  (III,  3,  330-333). 

Fear 
Equally  picturesque  and  vivid  is  the  portrayal  of  fear  in  the 
Shakespearean  soliloquy.     Richard  the  Third,  awakening  from 
his  dream  and  for  the  first  time  awake  to  his  conscience,  thus 
epitomizes  his  terrified  mood : 

"  The  lights  burn  blue.     It  is  now  dead  midnight. 
Cold  fearful  drops  stand  on  my  trembling  flesh"  (V,  3,  180-1). 


168 
Likewise  Juliet's  phial  soliloquy  opens  with  the  revelation : 

"  I  have  a  faint  cold  fear  thrills  through  my  veins, 
That  almost  freezes  up  the  heat  of  life"  (IV,  3,  15-16). 

Both  soliloquies  are  surcharged  with  terror,  every  image  con- 
jured up  adding  fresh  horror  to  the  mental  state.  A  milder 
aspect  of  fear  is  depicted  in  the  premonitions  of  Portia 
("Julius  Caesar,"  II,  4,  39-46)  and  of  Antony  ("Antony  and 
Cleopatra,"  II,  3,  33-40).  Fear,  in  its  sinister  fascination,  is 
symbolized  in  the  fatal  vision  of  the  dagger  which  confronts 
Macbeth  (II,  i,  33, 49) .  The  apparition  is  doubtless  intended  as 
an  hallucination  "  proceeding  from  the  heat-oppressed  brain," 
but  Macbeth's  dread  is  a  real  emotion.  The  knocking  at  the 
gate  and  the  sight  of  blood  converts  his  dread  into  fright  (II, 
2,  57-63).  To  be  sure,  the  fright  is  not  unmixed  with  other 
feelings.     The  question, 

"  Will  all  great  Neptune's  ocean  wash  this  blood 
Clean  from  my  hand  ?  " 

has  a  large  significance  quite  apart  from  the  momentary  im- 
pulse of  fear. 

Thus  even  our  brief  study  of  the  Shakespearean  soliloquy's 
depiction  of  the  passions, — grief,  love,  jealousy,  revenge,  hatred 
and  fear,  together  with  their  various  combinations  and  modifi- 
cations,— brings  home  the  truth  of  Professor  Curry's  tribute: 
"  Shakespeare's  soliloquies  .  .  .  are  objective  embodiments  in 
words  of  feelings  and  moods  of  which  the  speaker  himself  is 
only  partly  conscious.  This  is  the  very  climax  of  literature, — 
to  word  what  no  individual  ever  words. "''^ 

The  Significance  of  the  Shakespearean  Soliloquy 
The  Shakespearean  soliloquy  is  its  own  justification.  True, 
as  a  means  of  exposition  and  as  an  accompaniment  of  the 
action,  the  soliloquy  is  now  virtually  obsolete.  Yet  we  would 
not  dispense  with  it  in  these  capacities,  as  manipulated  by  the 
master.  The  depiction  of  villainy  in  the  soliloquies  of  Richard 
the  Third,  lago,  Macbeth  and  Lady  Macbeth  may  not  be  in 
strict  accordance  with  recent  studies  in  criminology,  nor  with 

"  S.  S.  Curry,  Browning  and  the  Dramatic  Monolog,  Boston,  1908,  p.  56. 


169 

the  present  methods  of  play-making,  but  each  monolog  is  a 
superb  artistic  achievement  which  stands  the  test  of  time. 
Again,  according  to  the  theatrical  fashion  of  to-day,  a  char- 
acter alone  is  almost  never  permitted  to  fall  asleep,  commit 
suicide  or  die ;  but  these  acts  are  often  momentously  dramatic, 
and  Shakespeare,  by  means  of  accompanying  soliloquies,  has 
raised  them  to  the  realm  of  high  poetic  seriousness.  Further, 
our  drop-curtain  removes  the  requirement  for  entrance  and  exit 
speeches,  but  the  little  soliloquies  introducing,  linking  and  clos- 
ing the  episodes  of  Shakespearean  tragedy  give  a  lyric  finish 
to  the  scenes  impossible  in  modern  plays.  The  overheard  solil- 
oquy, to  be  sure,  is  out  of  the  question  nowadays,  but  the  very 
absurdity  of  the  convention  serves  to  add  merriment  to  Shake- 
speare's delightful  fooling. 

Not  all  of  Shakespeare's  comic  monologs  are  indispensable, 
but  the  few  by  the  vulgar  bufifoon  are  far  outbalanced  by  the 
many  which  portray  the  laughable  aspects  of  human  nature. 
The  ego  of  the  soliloquizer  is  laid  bare  for  the  delectation  of 
the  audience,  and  hence  those  inimitable  studies  in  self-opin- 
ionated assurance,  the  soliloquies  of  Benedick  and  Falstaff. 

In  tragedy  as  in  comedy  some  of  the  most  notable  Shake- 
spearean characters  are  depicted  by  means  of  the  soliloquy. 
The  pure  passion  of  youth,  exuberantly  phrased  in  the  abun- 
dant imagery  of  nature,  is  disclosed  in  the  solitary  musings  of 
the  immortal  lovers,  Romeo  and  Juliet.  Through  the  medium 
of  soliloquy  we  are  made  to  feel  with  Macbeth  his  temptation, 
his  ambition,  his  fearsome  resolve,  and  finally  his  miserable 
recognition  of  Nemesis.  /Brutus  might  appear  a  murderer  and  / 
Hamlet  a  madman,  were  it  not  for  the  soliloquies  which  reveal 
their  noble  natures  wrenched  by  their  conceptions  of  duty.  . 

Hamlet  without  soliloquy  would  be  Hamlet  left  out.     His  habit  ^^ 

of  thinking  too  precisely  on  the  event  constitutes  the  real 
tragedy.  Likewise  the  contrition  of  the  criminal  Claudius  and 
the  humility  of  the  despotic  Lear — parables  unsurpassed  in  the 
history  of  the  drama — ^are  made  intelligible  by  aid  of  soliloquy. 
These  instances  serve  to  illustrate  the  indebtedness  of  dramatic 
literature  to  the  Shakespearean  soliloquy,  and,  indeed,  of 
Shakespeare  to  the  convention  of  the  soliloquy  which  was 
ready  at  his  hand. 


INDEX 


The  Index  contains  the  titles  of  works  and  the  names  of  authors  men- 
tioned in  the  text  or  footnotes  of  the  foregoing  treatise. 


Abhandlung  vom   Trauerspiele,   i8n. 
Acharnians,  7,  48n,  66,  85. 
Adelphi,  49. 
Aeschylus,   s,   6,   48,    134,    136,    139, 

162. 
Agamemnon,   6,    133,    136. 
Ajax,  6,  80,  149. 
Albumazar,  iii. 
Alcestis,   6,   48n. 
Alfonso,  92n. 
Alfred,  King,  156. 
Alladine  and  Palomedes,  53. 
Allen,  P.  S.,  i02n. 
All  Fools,  116. 
All  for  Love,  94. 

All's  Well  that  Ends  Well,  25,  43n, 
64,   65,   68,   84n,   87,   93,   94,    107, 
119,  i29n,  137,  150,  152,  165. 
Alphonsus,  133. 
Aminta,  95. 
Amour  Medicin,  L',  9sn. 

Amphitryon,  49,  56,  102. 

Anachronism  in  Shakespeare  Cri- 
ticism, 62. 

Andria,   119. 

Andromache,   48n. 

Andromede,  15. 

Antonio  and  Mellida,   11—12,   142. 

Antonio's  Revenge,  60. 

Antony,  63. 

Antony  and  Cleopatra,  25,  30,  44,  y6, 
77,  94,  137,  138,  144,  146,  153, 
162,  163,   164,   165,  168. 

Appius  and  Virginia,  10,  115. 

Appolonius  the  Prince  of  Tyr,  38. 

Archer,  William,    16,   18. 

Arden  of  Feversham,  67,   142, 


Aristophanes,    i,    7,    48,    56,   66,    75, 

83,  8s,  103,  114. 
Arms  and  the  Man,  75. 
Art  of  Playwrighting,  The,  3n. 
Arte   nuevo    de    hazar   comedias   en 

este  tiempo,  87. 
As  You  Like  It,  25,  26,  43,  84,  i2in, 

146. 
Attic  Theatre,  The,  in,  2n. 
Aubignac,  F.  H.  Abbe  d',  18,  69,  70, 

72,  99- 
Augustine,   St.,  2,   156. 
Aulularia,   94,    104. 
Authorship    of    Timon    of    Athens, 

The,   r53n. 
Avare,  L' ,  96,  104. 

Bacchides,  49,  86n,  89,  114,  117. 

Bailey,  Sir  W.  H.,   159. 

Baillie,  Joanna,   19,  96,   135. 

Bale,  Bishop,  54. 

Banished  Wife's  Complaint,  The,  5. 

Bates,  E.  S.,  135. 

Battle  of  Alcazar,  The,  78. 

Beaumont,  Francis,  52,  57,  76,  79, 
83,  85,  89,  123. 

Beddoes,  T.  L.,  53,  78. 

Beitrage  zur  Litteratur,   i02n. 

Beowulf,  5,  77n. 

Bernstein,  H.,  86. 

Bestrafte  Brudermord,  Der,  33,  36. 

Bible,  The,  148. 

Bible  as  Literature,  The,  37n. 

Blossom-Gatherings  from  St.  Augus- 
tine, 156. 

Boccaccio,  67,  74. 

Boileau-Despreaux,  Nicholas,  83n. 

Boisteau,  P.,  40. 


170 


171 


Bradley,  A.  C,  Sgn,  99,  107,  no. 
Brandes,  Georg,  144. 
Brandl,  A.,  50. 
Bride's  Tragedy,  The,  7911. 
Brooke,   Arthur,    39,   40. 
Browning,  Robert,  S3,  i34. 
Browning  and  the  Dramatic  Mono- 
log,  i68n. 
Burgeois  gentilhomme,  Le,  16. 
Byron,  Lord,  52,  53,  73- 

Cabinet  Minister,  The,  68,  80,  83. 
Cailhava  d'Estendoux,  J.  F.  de,   16, 

19,  83. 
Caius  Gracchus,  75. 
Calderon,  68,  124,   133,   i35- 
Calisto  and  Melibaea,  104. 
Cambises,   10,   53,   78,   91.   104,   106, 

123,  134- 
Campbell,  Lewis,  62. 
Captivi,  48n,  49,  54,  S9« 
Capell,  Edward,  112. 
Cardanus,  G.,  37- 
Castle  Spectre,  The,  63. 
Cenci,  The,  76,  96,  i3S. 
Chambers,  E.  K.,  102. 
Chanson  de  Roland,  77^- 

Chapman,  George,  37,  116,  120. 

Chaucer,  Geoffrey,  37,  163. 

Chester  Plays,  son. 

Chettle,  Henry,  52. 

Christ  appearing  to  Mary,  50,  163. 

Clarke,  C.  C,  112. 

Cleopatra,  52. 

Cloetta,  W.,  102. 

Clouds,  The,  7,  48n,  75,  85. 

Coleridge,  S.  T.,  19,  S3,  "2,  140. 

Collier,  J.  P.,  13. 

Comedie  moyen  age  et  renaissance, 
La,  io3n. 

Comedy  of  Errors,  The,  9,  24,  41,  55, 

64,  71. 
Concerning  the  Soliloquy,  17",  98n. 
Conflict  of  Conscience,  The,  60. 
Congreve,  William,  18,  71,  72. 
Contention    between   Liberality    and 

Prodigality,  120. 


Cook,  A.  S.,  37- 

Coriolanus,   24,    25,    30,   44,    55,    66, 

88,  153. 
Corneille,  Pierre,  15-16. 
Creation  and  Fall,   The,   74. 
Creizenach,     Wilhelm,     17",     i02n, 

io3n. 
Critic,  The,  77,  114. 
Cunliffe,  J.  W.,  49",  50,  67",   139", 

I4in,  163". 
Curfew,  The,  68. 
Curry,  S.  S.,  168. 
Cyclops,  48n. 

Cymheline,  24,  25,  26,  38,  44,  45,  53, 
55,  57,  59,  62,  65,  68,  71,  74,  75, 
77,   89,    107,    137,    138,    141.    153, 
15s,   162,  165. 
Cyrano   de  Bergerac,   66,    163. 

Damon  and  Pythias,  10,  86,  95,  "5, 

120. 
Daniel,  Samuel,  52. 
Davenant,  Sir  Wm.,  155. 
David  and  Bethsabe,  161. 
Death  of  Robert  Earl  of  Huntington, 

The,  61. 
Death's  Jest  Book,  79"- 
Decameron,  38. 
Dekker,  Thomas,  52,  123. 
De  I'art  de  la  comedie,  i6n,  19",  83. 
Delius,  Nicolaus,   19,  162,   164,   165. 
Deor,  Song  of,  5. 
Depit  amoureux,  Le,  124. 

DeQuincey,  Thomas,  in. 

Development    of    the    Drama,    The, 
2on. 

Dibdin,  Thomas,  83. 

Diderot,  Denis,   18. 

Dido,   i2n,   SI. 

Disobedient  Child,  The,  104. 

Doctor  Faustus,  12,  51,  105,  146. 

Dolce,  Ludovico,  51,  149- 

Doll's  House,  A,  90. 

Don  Juan,  16. 

Double-Dealer,  The,  18,  72. 

Dowden,  Edward,  58. 

Dramatic    Convention   with   Special 


172 


Reference    to    the    Soliloquy,    3n, 

i6n. 
Dramatische  Monolog  in  der  Poetik 

des  17.  und  18.  J ahrhnnderts ,  Der, 

i7n,  83n. 
Dryden,  John,  52,  57,  69,  70,  yz,  94, 

120. 
Dumas,  Alexandre,  pere,  63. 
Dusel,   Friedrich,   i7n,  Ssn,   84n. 

Ecclesiastes,  148,  149. 
Ecclesiaziisae,  7,  48,  114. 
&cole  des  maris,  U,  8sn. 
Edwards,  Richard,  86, 
Edward  the  Second,  51,  67,  76. 
Eighteenth      Century      Essays      on 

Shakespeare,  i25n. 
Einleitung  in   die  schonen   Wissen- 

schaften,    lyn. 
Electra,  6,  48n. 
Endimion,  75,  76. 
English  Chronicle  Play,  The,  42n. 
English  Dramatists  of  To-day,  i6n, 

i8n. 
Englishmen  for  my  Money,   106. 
Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy,  69. 
Essay  on  Poetry,  i7n,  163. 
Essay  on  the  Dramatic  Character  of 

Sir  John  Falstaff,  124. 
ttourdi,  L',  86. 
Etymological  Dictionary,  211. 
Eumenides,  6,  48,  136. 
Eunuch,  The,  69,  iii. 
Euripides,   5,   6,    7,   48,   91,   92,    133, 

134.  139. 
Evadne,  90. 
Everyman,  8,  141,  163. 
Everyman  in  His  Humor,  120. 
Evolution  of  Dramatic  Technic,  The, 

i6n. 
Excursions  in  Art  and  Letters,  sgu, 

i57n. 

Fair   Maid   of    the   Exchange,    The, 

113. 
Faithful  Shepherdess,  The,  95. 


Famous     Victories     of    Henry     the 

Fifth,  The,  29,  32. 
Farmer,  Richard,  115. 
Faust,  52. 

Femmes  Savantes,  Les,  16. 
First  Part  of  Jeronimo,  The,  11. 
First  Part  of  Selimus,  The,  142,  145. 
First  Part  of  the  Contention,   The, 

27,  28,  32. 
Fischer,  Rudolf,  i2n. 
Fletcher,   John,   46,    52,    57,    76,    79, 

83,  8s,  89,  95.  123. 
Flight  of  Egypt,  The,  I39n. 
Fortunes  of  Nigel,  The,  19,  2on. 
Fourberies  de  Scapin,  Les,  gsn. 
Foure  PP,  The,  54. 
Franc-archer  de  Bagnolet,  Le,   103, 

118, 
Freytag,  Gustav,  19,  81. 
Friar  Bacon  and  Friar  Bungay,  76, 

105. 
Fuller.  H.  deW.,  4on. 
Fuller,  Thomas,  124. 

Gallathea,  56,  105. 

Gammer  Gurton,  9,  83,  91,  105. 

Genesis  of  Hamlet,  The,  158. 

Gervinus,  G.  G.,  122. 

Geschichte    des    Neueren     Dramas, 

1711. 
Gisniond  of  Salerne,   9,    50,   67,   80, 

85,  139.  146,  162. 
Goethe,  52. 
Golding,  A.,  37,  115. 
Good  Matured  Man,  The,  91. 
Gorboduc,  9,  141. 
Gottsched,  J.  C.,  83n. 
Gower,   John,   38. 
Greene,  Robert,  51,  61,  76,  105,  133, 

142,  160. 
Guarini,  G.  B.,  95. 

Haigh,  A.  E.,  in. 

Halle,  E.,  27,  28. 

Hamlet,  4,  8,  14,  19,  21,  25,  26,  33- 
37,  43,  44,  63,  64,  65,  71,  85,  86, 
88n,  112,  134,   136,   138,   139,   140, 


173 


143.   I4S,    147,   152,   154,   i55,   i56, 
157,    158-160,    161,    162,    163,    166. 

Hamlet  and  Contemporary  Revenge 
Plays,  I  in,  33". 

Hamme,  Sir  Thomas    108. 

Heart  of  Midlothian,  The,  83. 

Heautontimorumenos,  86n. 

Heiberg,  J.  L.,  61. 

Helena,  6,  48". 

Henderson,  Archibald,  16,   17,  69. 

Hennequin,  Alfred,  3,  4- 

Henry   IV,   Part   I,   25,   42,    $8,   68, 
71,  88n,  89,  93,  123-128,  137. 

Henry  IV,  Part  II,   21,  25,  29,  42, 
84,   io6n,   109,   126-127,   138,   149, 

150. 
Henry    V,   25,    29,   42,   64,   84,    109, 

137,  138,  140,  150. 
Henry  VI,  Part  I,  24,  27,  41,  64,  89. 
Henry   VI,  Part  II,   24,   27,  63,   76, 

88n,  91,   140,   144- 
Henry  VI,  Part  III.  24,  26,  28,  56, 
61,  66,  77,  82,  90,  92,  94,  149.  166. 
Henry  VIII,  25,  27n,  45,  i53,  163. 
Heracleidae,  48n. 
Heraclius,  iS- 
Heraud,  J.  A.,  112. 
Hercules  Furens,  6. 
Hercules  Oetaeus,  49- 
Hernani,  59- 
Hesiod,  136. 
Hey  wood,  Jasper,   136. 
Heywood,  John,  9,  5i,  54,  "6,  132. 
Hey  wood,  Thomas,  80,   107. 
Hija   del   aire.  La,    124. 
History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry, 

i3n. 
Hoffman,  156. 
Holcroft,  T.,  95- 
Holinshed,  Raphael,  27,  29,  30. 
Homer,  5,  30,  37- 
Horestes,  10,  156. 
How   a  Man   May   Choose   a   Good 

Wife  from  a  Bad,  106. 
Hugo,  Victor,  59- 
Hunter,  Joseph,  35,  37- 


Ibsen,  Henrik,  16,  47,  85,  88,  90,  98. 
Impressions  de  theatre,  99n. 
Influence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 

on  Shakespeare,  The,  45n. 
Influence  of  Seneca  on  Elizabethan 

Tragedy,  The,  49n. 
Inter  esse,  L',  124. 
Ion,  48n. 
Iphegenia    among    the    Tauri,    48n, 

134- 
Iron  Age,  The,  80. 

Jack  Juggler,  104. 

Jack  Straw,  123. 

James  IV,  61. 

Jefferson,  Joseph,  112. 

Jeronimo,  66. 

Jew  of  Malta,  The,  12,  51,  61,  i47- 

Job,  148. 

Jocasta,  9,  149- 

Jodelet,  114- 

Jodelet  Duelliste,  Le,  124. 

Johan  Johan,  116,  ii9- 

Johnson,  C.  F.,  107. 

Johnson,  Samuel,  loi,  108,  158,  iS9. 

Jones,  H.  A.,  16,  86. 

Jonson,  Ben,  52,  120,  i47- 

Julius  Caesar,  3,  25,  30,  42,  64.  68, 
75,  79,  84n,  85,  138,  Mi,  146,  I47, 
148,  151,  154,  157,  166,  168. 

Kdliddsa,  109,  i49,  163. 

Kilian,   Eugen,   19,   48n,   69,   7o,  92. 

107,  128. 
King  and  No  King,  A,  123. 
King  Johan,   54. 
King  John,  25,  26,  31,  32,  42,  73,  84, 

121-123. 
King  Lear,  19,  25,  32,  44,  53,  55,  57, 

59,    62,    74,    75,    84,    89,    95,    109, 

136,   138,   152,   160,   161. 
King  Leir,  32,  63. 
Kinwelmersh,  Francis,  149- 
Knight  of  Malta,  The,  52. 
Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  The, 

76,  78,  114. 


174 


Knowles,  Sheridan,  75,  135. 

Kyd,  Thomas,  11,  13,  33,  36,  51,  66. 

Lady  of  Lyons,  The,  76, 

Lamb,  Charles,  159. 

League  of  Youth,  The,  16. 

Lectures  on  Dramatic  Art  and  Liter- 
ature, 14411. 

Lemaitre,  Jules,  98. 

Leo,  Friedrich,  5,   135-136. 

Lessing,  G.  E.,  75,  8411,  128. 

Lewis,  M.  G.,  6z,  92x1,  158. 

Like  unto  Like,  104. 

Lintilhac,  Eugene,  103,  116. 

Look  about  You,  56. 

Lope  de  Vega,  52,  87. 

Love's  Labour's  Lost,  24,  41,  93,  97, 
108,  113,  129,  164. 

Lowell,  J.  R.,  13. 

Lucian,  32. 

Lyly,  John,  13,  5i,  56,  7Sn,  7^,  105, 
113- 

Lyndsay,  Sir  David,  139. 

Lysistrata,  7,  48n,  83. 

Macbeth,  14,  19,  21,  25,  26,  29,  44, 
59,  63,  66,  68,  75,  82,  87,  111-112, 
131,  137,  138,  141,  143,  14s,  146, 
147,  148,  152,  155,  157,  161,  167, 
168. 

Maeterlinck,  M,,  53. 

Magistrate,  The,  69. 

Magnificence,  59,  60,  118. 

Maid's  Tragedy,  The,  57,  76. 

Maxtre  Pierre  Patelin,  132. 

Major  alcade  el  rey,  El,  52. 

Malade   imaginaire,   Le,    52. 

Mdlati  and  Mddhava,  76. 

Manfred,  52,  73. 

Mankind,  50,  95,  139. 

Man's  Disobedience,  8. 

Mariage  force,  Le,  85. 

Marlowe,  Christopher,  12-14,  42,  48, 
51,  52,  61,  67,  76,  78,  105,  140, 
146,  147. 

Marmontel,  J.  F.,  19. 

Marston,  John,   11,  60,   120,  142. 


Massacre  of  Paris,  The,  147. 
Matthews,  Brander,  16,  i7n,  2on,  98. 
Measure  for  Measure,  11,  25,  31,  42, 
43,  63,  64,  84n,  92,  109,  136,  I48n, 

151,  iss,  157. 

Medea,  6,  48n,  49,  74,  133,  139,  167. 
Medecin   malgre  lui,   Le,   91. 
Medico  de  su  honra,  El,  68. 
Medieval  Stage,  The,  i02n. 
Melicerte,  91. 
Menaechmi,   31,  49,    119. 
Menteur,  La  suite  du,  15. 
Mendelssohn-Bartholdy,  J.  L,  F.,  18. 
Mercator,  49,  83. 
Merchant  of  Venice,  The,  4,  25,  26, 

42,  88,  109,  128,  136,  137,  156. 
Meredith,  George,  121. 
Merry   Wives  of  Windsor,  The,  25, 
42,    55,    57,    68,    83,   84n,    870,   89, 
io6n,  110,  117,  127,  136,  165. 
Michael  and  His  Lost  Angel,  86. 
Middleton,  Thomas,  52,  120. 
Midsummer-Night' s   Dream,   A,    25, 
27,  55,  74,  75,  7^,  82,  85,  88,  106, 
108,   114,   116,   136,   137,   165,   166. 
Miles  Gloriosus,  56,  86n. 
Mind  and  Art  of  Shakespeare,  The, 

58. 
Minna  von  Barnhelm,   75. 
Mirandola,  52. 
Misanthrope,  Le,  16. 
Misfortunes  of  Arthur,  The,  9,  141. 
Misogonus,  9. 
Mitford,  M.  R.,  53,  9°. 
Moliere,   16,   52,   83,  85,  86,  88,  91, 

95n,  96,  102,  104,  124,  135. 
Monologue    dramatique,    Le,     io3n, 

ii8n. 
Monsieur  Thomas,  57. 
Morgann,  Maurice,  124-125. 
Mott,  L.  F.,  35. 
Mucedorus,  56,  105. 
Much   Ado   about   Nothing,   25,   43, 

129-131,   150,   165. 
Mudrd-Rdkshasa,  138,  141,  152,  158. 
Mulgrave,  Earl  of,  17,  163. 


175 


Nature  of  the  Four  Elements,   139- 
Neilson,  W.  A.,  3n,  zyn,  46. 
Nice  Wanton,  60. 
Nicolai,  Friedrich,  18. 
Noah  and  Lamcch,  77,  i5S- 
Noah's  Flood,  1390- 

Octavia,  A9- 
Oedipe,   i5- 
Oedipus,  49- 
O'Keefe,  John,  9211. 
Old  English  Dramatists,  13". 
Old  Fortunatus,  123- 
Orestes,  48n. 

Orlando  Furioso,  142,  160. 
Orra,  96.  ,  , 

Othello,   19,   -5.   44,   55,   59,  62,   79, 
84,  <^7>    107,    137,    1-52.    162,    165, 

■6". 

oltoof  Wittelsbach,  90. 

Ovid,   37,    "5. 


# 


Plutarch,   30,  41- 

Pliitiis,  7- 

Poetique  frangoise,  18. 

Pompee,  iS- 

Pratique  du  Theatre,  18,  69. 

Precieuses  ridicules,  16. 

Preston,  Thomas,   91,   i34- 

Price,  W.  T.,  19- 

Principe  constante.  El,  124. 

Proctor,  B.  W.,  52. 

Profligate,  The,  81,  87. 

Prometheus  Bound,  6,  i34,  136,  162. 

Promos   and    Cassandra,    lo-ii,    31, 

56,  92,  156. 
Prophets,  The,  53- 
Proverbs,  148. 
Psalms,  148- 
Puente  de  mantible,  124. 

QM^/kn  de5  Weltlichen  Dramas,  son. 


Painter,  William,  40- 

Fainfer  0/  Hf^  Own  Dishonor,  134- 

PoJace  0/  Pleasure,  40* 

Pandosto,  45- 

Pastor  Fido,  II,  95- 

FaJter«e  0/  Pain/"^  ^dz/^nfMr^s,  38. 

Paull,  H.  M.,  3,  16,  17. 

Peek,  George,  13,  78,   161. 

Pericles,  25,  27n,  38,  44,  55,  66,  141, 

145,  147,  153- 
Pertharite,   i5- 
Phaedra,  5°,    163- 
Philaster,  45- 
Phillips,   Stephen,   75- 
Phoenician  Women,  48n,  91,  i39' 
Phormio,  49- 

F^tystcian  of  Ht'^  Honor,  135- 
Picot,  £mile,  i03n,  ii8n. 
Pillars  of  Society,  The,  84,  86. 
Pippa  Passes,  S3- 
Plaidcurs,  Les,  7S- 
Plautus,  I,  7,  9,   10,   14,   IS,  31,  48, 
49,  S3,  56,  59,  64,  66,  69,  71,  83 
86,  89,  9in,  92,  94,  95n,  103,  lOS 
III,  114,  "7,  "9,  122,  129. 


Racine,   75- 
Ramler,  S.  K.  W.,  i7- 
Rastell,  John,  i39- 
Ratndvali,  48,  94- 
Raiiber,  Die,  75- 
Rehearsal,   The,    128. 
Respublica,  54- 
Revenger's  Tragedy,  The,  54- 
Ricardus  Tertius,  28. 
Fic/mrd  //,  2S,  29,  42,  137,  144. 
Richard  III,  8,  2S,  28,  38,  42,  SL  55, 
61,  64,  71,  86,  8711,  102,  140,  144, 
147,  148,  ISO,  154,  161,  167. 
Richelieu,  60. 

Roister  Doister,  9,  5o,  104,  105. 
Romeo  and  Juliet,  19,  25,  26,  38-41, 
42,  SS,  €>7,  76,  79,  80,  82,  8711,  94. 
97,   109,    115,    137,   U7,   151,   164, 
168. 
Romeo  and  Juliette,  14- 
Romeus  and  Juliet,  39,  40. 
Rostand,  Edmond,  66,  163. 

Sakuntala,  67.  86,  109,  i49,  163. 

Sapho  and  Phao,  113- 

Satire  of  the  Three  Estates,  139- 


176 


Saul,  134. 

Scaliger,  J.  C,  99. 

Scapin,  96. 

Scarron,  Paul,  114,  124. 

Schelling,   F.   E.,   42. 

Schlegel,   A.   W.   von,    144. 

Schiller,  J.  C.  F.  von,  75. 

Scott,  Sir  Walter,  19,  20,  83. 

Secret  Love,  57. 

Secunda   Pastorum,   8,    14,   91,    122, 

134- 
Sejanus,   147. 
Seneca,  6-7,  9,   14,  49,  50,  74,   133, 

136,  139,  141,  149,  162,  167. 
Senecan    Influence    on    Elizabethan 

Drama,  i4in. 
Sganarelle,  91,  124. 
Shakespeare  and  His  Critics,  loyn. 
Shakespeare  Commentaries,  122. 
Shakespearean    Tragedy,    89n,    99n, 

no. 
Shakespearesche  Monolog  und  seine 

Spielweise,  Der,  48n. 
Shaw,  Bernard,  75. 
Shell,  R.,  90. 

Shelly,  P.  B.,  53,  76,  96,  13s. 
Sheridan,  R.  B.,  yy,  114. 
She  Stoops  to  Conquer,  91. 
Shirley,  James,  90. 
Skeat,  W.  W.,  2n. 
Skelton,  John,  59,  60,  118. 
Soliman  and  Persida,  11,   119,  123. 
Sonnenfels,  Joseph  von,  18,  83n. 
Sophocles,  5,  6,  48,  80,  139,  149. 
Sophonisba,  12. 
Spanish  Tragedy,   The,   11,  80,   158, 

160,  165. 
Stichus,  103,  122. 
Stoll,  E.  E.,  62n. 
Story,  W.  W.,  59n,  157. 
Struijs,  Jacob,  40. 
Studley,  John,  133. 
Study  of  Shelley's  Drama,  the  Cenci, 

A,  i3Sn. 
Study  of  the  Prolog  and  Epilog,  A, 

49n. 
Suppliants,   48n,    139. 


Supposes,   9. 

Tale  of  Mystery,  A,  96. 

Talfourd,  T.  N.,  76. 

Tamburlaine,    i2n,    13,    14,    78,    80, 

140,   161. 
Taming   of   a   Shreiv,    The,    32,   42, 

106. 
Taming  of  the  Shrew,  The,  25,  31, 

55,  84n,  106,  109,  114,  137. 
Tancred  and  Gismunda,  85. 
Tartu ffe,  16,  84. 
Tasso,   95. 

Technique  of  the  Drama,  ign,  81. 
Tempest,  The,  25,  45,  109,  in. 
Tenne  Tragedies,  9,  49,  133. 
Terence,  i,  7,  9,   10,   15,  48,  49,  64, 

69,   71,   86,   89,   91,   94,   95n,    102, 

103,  III. 
Theodore,   15. 
Ther  sites,   104,   118. 
Thief,   The,   86n. 
Thorndike,  A.  H.,  iin,  22,  45- 
Thyestes,  6,  136,   141. 
Timon  of  Athens,  4,  19,  25,  26,  27n, 

22,  43,  44,  55,  65,   146,   153,   166. 
Titus  Andronicus,  24,  26,  27,  61,  64, 

74,  97,  134,  135,  i?6n,  164. 
Tobin,  John,  68. 
Toison  d'or.  La,  16. 
Tolman,  A.  H.,  160. 
Tom  Tyler,  116. 
Tourneur,  Cyril,   52,  54. 
Tozvneley  Plays,  5on,  i04n. 
Toy-Cart,  The,  48,  60,  66,  72,  74,  75, 

83,   154- 
Tragic  Drama  in  Aeschylus,  Sopho- 
cles and  Shakespeare,  62. 
Traitor,  The,  90. 
Trinummus,  49,   129. 
Troades,  6. 
Troilus  and  Cressida,  25,  37,  82,  89, 

120-121,  139,  147,  151,  164,  165. 
Trojan  Women,  48n. 
Troublesome  Raigne  of  King  John, 

The,  31,  73- 
Truculcntus,  49. 


177 


True  Tragedy  of  Richard,  Duke  of 
York,  The,  27,  28,  29,  32. 

True  Tragedy  of  Richard  III,  The, 
32. 

Twelfth  Night,  25,  43,  55,  59,  65, 
68,  Sjn,  93,  97,  129,  151,  165. 

Twine,  Laurence,  38. 

Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona,  The,  24, 
42,  63,  81,  82,  88,  102,  106,  108, 
i36n,  137,  146,  147,  164,  165. 

Two  Lamentable  Tragedies,  61. 

Uber  den  Monolog  in  Shakespeare's 

Dramen,  162,   164. 
Ulysses,  75. 
Uttara-Rdma-Charitra,   158. 

Valentinian,  79. 

Versuch  einer  Critischen  Dichtkunst, 

i7n. 
Views  about  Hamlet,  The,  i6on. 
Virgil,    152. 
Virginius,  135. 
Voltaire,  83n. 


Wanderer,  The,  5. 

Whetstone,    George,    lo-ii,    31,    56, 

92. 
Whole  Art  of  the  Stage,  The,   i8n, 

69n,  99n. 
Wild  Oats,  92n. 
William  Shakespeare,  144. 
Wilmot,  Robert,  85. 
Winter's  Tale,   The,  25,  45,   53,  65, 

67,  92,  117-118,  120. 
Wisdom  Who  is  Christ,  60. 
Women  Pleased,  57. 
Woman    Killed    ivith    Kindness,    A, 

io7n. 
Woodes,  Nathaniel,   60. 
Worthies  of  England,   The,   i24n, 
Wright,  E,  H.,  i53n. 
Wright,   W.  A.,    115. 

Yarrington,  Robert,  52. 
York  Plays,,  son,  sin. 

Zur    Kunstentwicklung    der    Engli- 
schen  Tragodie,  12x1. 


13 


VITA 

The  writer  was  born  at  Marshfield,  Wisconsin,  May  30, 1881. 
He  attended  Madison  Grammar  School  and  Central  High 
School  of  Minneapolis,  Minnesota,  and  received  the  degrees  of 
A.B.,  1904,  from  the  University  of  Minnesota,  and  A.M.,  1905, 
from  Harvard  University.  The  following  year  he  was  acting 
head  of  the  Department  of  English  Literature  at  the  University 
of  Minnesota,  and  then,  after  a  season  of  travel  and  study 
abroad,  he  attended  the  English  Graduate  School  of  Columbia 
University  for  two  years.  During  the  year  1907-1908  he 
assisted  Professor  Brander  Matthews  in  the  Graduate  Depart- 
ment at  Columbia.  In  1909  the  author  was  elected  to  the  chair 
of  English  Literature  at  Hamline  University,  St.  Paul,  Min- 
nesota, a  position  which  he  still  occupies. 


KAiViN  LIBRARY 


)1 


-"-'7A-"«">"'AtlT0  DISC  f!?r?*^1 


General  Library     . 


'S8)418.-,— S-87 


UC     BERKELEY   CIBDARIES 
Ill 


CD31Eb5bM7 


228817 


